BIBLICAL COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT, BT DR. HERMANN OLSHAUSEN, PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE / UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN. < *~" TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN FOR CLARK'S FOREI&N AND THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. FIRST AMERICAN EDITION, REVISED AFTER THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION, BY A. C. KENDRICK, D.D., PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THE U N I V E R S I T T O F RO H E 8 T E R. ' TO WHICH IS PREFIXED OLSHAUSEN'S PROOF OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE WRITINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TRANSLATED BY DAVID FOSDICK, JE. VOL. I. v NEW YORK: HELDON, BLAKEMAN & CO., 115 NASSAU STREET. 1857. 7 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, ly SHELDON, BLAKEMAN & CO., In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. 8TEKKOTTPKD BY PBntntD BY THOMAS B. SMITH. PUDNEY & RUSSELL, 82 & 84 Beekman-street, N. Y. 79 John-street TABLE OF CONTENTS. Mi AMERICAN EDITOR'S PREFACE a. AUTHOR'S PREFACE xv PREFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION xix GENUINENESS OP THE WRITINGS OP THE NEW TESTAMENT . . . 25-133 INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMENTARY 1. On the Origin of the Gospel Collection 135 2. On the Character of the Gospel Collection 137 3. On the Affinity of the first three Gospels 189 4. On the Gospel of Matthew 141 6. On the Gospel of Mark 145 6. On the Gospel of Luke 147 7. On the Harmony of the Gospel History 149 8. On the Credibility of the Gospel History 153 9. Survey of the Literature 158 FIRST PART. OF THE BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. MATTHEW i ii. ; LUKE i. ii FIEST SECTION. MATTHEW'S ACCOUNT. Chaps. L ii. 1. Genealogy of Jesus. Matthew L 1-17 ; Luke iii. 23-38 165 2. The Birth of Jesus. Matthew i. 18-25 172 3. Visit of the Magi Flight into Egypt Murder of the Children Arrival at Galilee. Matthew ii. 1-23. .. . 183 V TABLE OF CONTENTS. SECOND SECTION. LUKE'S ACCOUNT. Chaps. L iL PAOK 1. Proemium. Luke i. 1-4. 197 2. Annunciation of the Birth of John the Baptist. Luke i. 5-25 203 3. Annunciation of the Birth of Jesus Mary's Visit to Elisabeth. Luke i. 26-56 213 4. John's Birth and Circumcision Prophecies of Zacharias concerning him and Christ. Luke i. 57-80 226 5. Birth, Circumcision, and Presentation of Jesus in the Temple. Luke iL 1-40 234 6. Jesus Converses with the Priests in the Temple. Luke iL 44-52 251 SECOND PART. OP JOHN THE BAPTIST. CHRIST'S BAPTISM AND TEMPTATION. MATTHEW iii. 1, iv. 12 ; MARK i. 2-13 ; LUKE iii. 1, iv. 13. 1. John's Doctrine and Baptism. Matthew iii. 1-12 ; Mark i. 2-9; Luke iii. 1-20 255 2. The Baptism of Christ. Matthew iii. 13-11 ; Mark i. 9-11 ; Luke iii. 21-23 ; Johni. 32-34 270 3. Christ's Temptation. Matthew iv. 1-11 ; Mark i. 11, 12 ; Luke iv. 1-13 275 THIRD PART. OP CHRIST'S WORKS AND DISCOURSES, PARTICULARLY IN GALILEE. MATTHEW iv. 12, xviii. 35 ; COMPARED WITH MARK i. 14, ix. 50 ; AND LUKE iv. 14, ix. 50. 1. Jesus appears as a Teacher. Matthew iv. 12-lY ; Mark i. 14, 15 ; Luke iv. 14, 15 285 2. Jesus chooses Disciples. Matthew iv. 18-22 ; Mark i. 16-20 288 8. Christ's Sermon on the Mount. Matthew iv. 23, vii. 29 288 4. Healing of a Leper. Matthew viii. 1-4; Mark i. 40-45 ; Luke v. 12-16 334 5. Healing of the Servant of a Centurion. Matthew viii. 5-13 ; Luke vii. 1-10. .. 342 6. Raising of the Young Man at Nain. Luke vii. 11-17 347 7. Healing of Peter's Mother-in-law. Matthew viii. 14-17 ; Mark L 29-34 ; Luke iv. 31-41 350 8. Peter's Draught of Fishes. Luke iv. 42-44; Mark i. 35-39 ; Luke v. 1-11... . 352 9. Jesus stills the Sea. Matthew viii. 18-27 ; Mark iv. 35-41 ; Luke viii. 22-25. 358 10. Cure of the Gadarene Demoniac. Matthew viiL 28-34; Mark v. 1-20 ; Luke viii.26-39.. 359 TABLE OF CONTENTS. V PAOB 11. Cure of a Paralytic. Matthew ix. 1-8; Mark v. 21, ii. 1-12; Luke v. 17-26. 373 12. The Calling of St. Matthew. Of Fasting. Matthew ix. 9-17 ; Mark ii. 13-22 ; Luke v. 27-39 379 13. Healing of the Woman with the Issue of Blood Raising from Death the Daughter of Jairus. Matthew ix. 18-26; Mark v. 22-43; Luke viii. 40-45. 384 14. Healing of two Blind Men, and of a Dumb Man. Matthew ix. 27-34 390 15. The sending forth of the Apostles. Matthew ix. 35, x. 42 ; Mark vi. 7-11 ; Luke ix. 1-5 391 16. John the Baptist sends his Disciples to Jesus. Discourses of Jesus on the oc- casion of this Mission. Matthew xi. 1-30; Luke vii. 18-35, x. 13-15, 21, 22 415 17. The Disciples pluck Ears of Corn. Matthew xii. 1-8 ; Mark ii. 23-28 ; Luke vi. 1-15 437 18. Jesus Cures a Withered Hand. Matthew xii. 9-12 ; Mark iii. 1-6 ; Luke vi 6-12 443 19. Of the Calumnies of the Pharisees. Jesus' Severe Rebukes of them. Matthew xii. 22-45 ; Mark iii. 20-30 ; Luke xi. 14-26, 29-32 448 20. The Arrival of the Mother and Brothers of Jesus. Matthew xii. 46-50 ; Mark iii. 31-35 ; Luke viii. 19-21 470 21. A Woman Anoints Jesus. Luke vii. 36, viii. 3 473 22. The Collection of Parables. Matthew xiii. 1-63 ; Mark iv. 1-20, 30-34 ; Luke viii., 4-15, xiii. 18-21 .' 479 23. Jesus in Nazareth. Matthew viii. 53-58 ; Mark vi. 1-6 ; Luke iv. 14-30 503 24. The Baptist's Death. Matthew xiv. 1-12 ; Mark vi. 14-29 ; Luke iii. 19, 20, ix. 7-9 513 25. Feeding of Five Thousand. Matthew xiv. 13-21 ; Mark vi. 30-44; Luke ix. 10-17 ; John vi. 1-15 516 26. Jesus Walks on the Sea. Matthew ix. 22-36 ; Mark vi. 45-56 ; John vi. 16-21 521 27. Of Washing the Hands. Matthew xv. 1-20 ; Mark vii. 1-23 526 28. The Healing of the Canaanitish Woman's Daughter. Matthew xv. 21-31 ; Mark vii. 24-31 ; [32-37, viiL 22-26] 633 29. Feeding of the Four Thousand. Matthew xv. 32-39 ; Mark viii. 1-10 538 30. Warning against the Leaven of the Pharisees. Matthew xvi. 1-12; Mark iii. 11-21 641 31. Confession of the Disciples. Prophecy of Jesus Respecting his own Death. Matthew xvi. 13-28 : Mark viii. 27, ix. 1 ; Luke ix. 18-27 543 32. The Transfiguration of Jesus. Matthew vii. 1-13 ; Mark ix. 2-13 ; Luke ix. 28-36 555 33. Healing of the Lunatic. Matthew xvii. 14-23 ; Mark ix. 14-32 ; Luke ix. 37-45 564 34. The Coin (stater) in the Fish's Mouth. Matthew xvii. 24-27 570 35. On the Character of the Children of the Kingdom. Matthew xviii. 1-35 ; Mark ix. 33-50; Luke ix. 46-56 574 VI TABLE OP CONTENTS. PART IV. OF CHRIST'S LAST JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM, AND CERTAIN INCIDENTS WHICH TOOK PLACE THERE. LUKE ix. 51, xxi. 38 ; MATTHEW xix. 1, xxv. 46 ; MARK x. 1, xiii. 87. PAGB 1. Report of the Journey by St. Luke. Luke ix. 51, xviil 14 596 2. James and John are Incensed against the Samaritans. Luke ix. 61-66 699 3. Of Following Jesus. Luke ix. 57-62 ; Matthew xiii 19-22 603 4. The Sending Forth of the Seventy Disciples, with the Address of Jesus to them. Lukex. 1-24; [Matthew xi. 20-27] 606 5. Parable of the Tender-hearted Samaritan. Luke x. 25-37 613 6. Mary and Martha. Luke x. 38-42 617 7. Directions Respecting Prayer. Luke xi 1-13 620 OKDEB OF THE SECTIONS OF THE GOSPELS IN VOLUME I. ARRANGED AFTER EACH GOSPEL. ST. MATTHEW. PAGE CHAPTERLiL 165 " iii 1-12 255 " iiL 13-17 270 " iv. 1-11 275 " iv. 12-17 285 " iv. 18-22 288 " iv. 23-vii, 29 288 " viiL 1-4 334 " viii 5-13.. ,. 342 viii 14-17. viii 350 18-27 358 viiL 28-34 359 ix. 1-8 373 ix. 9-17 379 ix. 18-26 384 ix. 27-34 390 ix. 35, x. 42 391 xL 1-30 415 xii 1-8.., 437 CHAPTER xiL " xii. " xiil " xiii " xiii " xiv. " xiv. i ' " xiv. 9-21 443 22-45 448 46-50 470 1-53 479 53-58 503 1-12 513 13-21 516 22-36 521 xv. 1-20 526 xv. 21-31 533 xv. 32-39 538 xvi 1-12 541 xvi 13-28 543 xvii 1-13 555 xvii 14-23 564 xvii. 24-27 570 xviii 1-35 574 viii 19-22 603 ri 20-27 606 ST. MARK. CHAPTER i 1 165 ' i 2-8 255-271 1 i. 9-11 270 i 12, 13 275 1 i. 14, 15 285-287 ' i 16-20 284 " i 29-34 350 i. 35-39 352 ii 40-15 334 " ii 1-12 373 " iv. 35-41 358 " V. 1-20 359 " V. 21 373 " ii 13-22 379 " V. 22-43 384 " vi 7-11 391 " ii 23-28 437 " iii 1-6 443 CHAPTER iii 20-30 448 " iii 31-35 470 " iv. 1-20, 30-40 479 vi 1-6 503 " vi 14-29 513 " vi 30-^4 516 vi 45-56 521 vii 1-23 526 vii 24-31 533 viii 22-26 533 viii. 1-10 538 viii 11-21 541 viii. 27 543 ix. 1 543 ix. 2-13 555 ix. 14-32 564 ix. 33-50 574 VU1 ORDER OF THE SECTIONS OF THE GOSPELS. ST. LUKE. PAGE CHAPTER!, ii 197 " iii. 1-20 255 " iii. 21-23 270 " iii. 23-28 165 " iv. 1-13.. . 275 iv. 14, 15. 285 iv. 31-41 350 iv. 42-44 352 V. 1-11 352 v. 12-16 334 v. 17-26 373 vii. 1-10 342 viii. 11-17 347 viii. 22-25 358 viii. 26-39 359 v. 27-39 379 viii. 40-55 384 ix. 1-5 391 vii. 18-35 415 x. 13-15, 21, 22 415 vi. 1-5 437 PAGE CHAPTER vi. 6-12 443 " xi. 14-26; 29-32 448 " viii. 19-21 470 " vii. 36; viii. 3 473 viii. 4-15 479 xiii. 18-21 479 iv. 14-30 503 iii. 19, 20 513 ix. 7-9 513 ix. 10-17 516 ix. 18-27 543 ix. 28-36 555 ix. 37-45 564 ix. 46-56 574 ix. 51; xviii. 14 596 ix. 51-56 599 ix. 57-62 603 x. 1-24 606 x. 65-37 613 x. 38-42 617 xL 1-13 620 PREFACE TO THE AMEKICAN EDITION. THE general character and merits of Olshausen's Commentary on the New Testament are too well known both abroad and at home to need being set forth in detail. In its combination of exact philo- logical learning, careful tracing of the logical connexion and full unfolding of the thought, and hearty sympathy with the spirit of the sacred writings, it stands almost alone, having nothing fully corresponding to it in our own or any language. This union of rare and high excellences makes it -almost equally valuable to the scholar, and the unlearned but intelligent student of the Scriptures. The latter finds the richest veins of thought opened, and Scripture truth unfolded in its depth and spirituality ; while the former finds the leading critical and philological points discussed, briefly indeed, but with a judgment and accuracy which furnish the best guarantee for the soundness of the rich doctrinal and practical teachings that are based upon them. A striking feature and excellence of the Com- mentary, is its clear and constant recognition of the organic unity of the entire Scriptures, and hence its constant illustration of the New Testament from the Old. Beyond, perhaps, the majority of commentators, Olshausen has traced the gradual unfolding of the divine revelation through its successive stages. He sees the New Testament rooted in the Old, the Old reaching its consummation in the New ; and he is eminently felicitous in employing the beautiful and blended lights which the two grand divisions of the sacred vol- ume reciprocally cast upon each other. His Commentary, in its English dress, has been for some years before the public, as part of the valuable series of works comprised in Clark's Foreign and Theological Library. It has been received with general and steadily-growing favor. The present publishers, therefore, deemed that they might subserve the interests both of X PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. sacred learning and practical piety in making it, by an American edition, more accessible to the American public : and this the more, as the enterprise would enable them to add materially to the value of the English work. It was with great diffidence that the editor undertook the supervision of the work ; and he would have shrunk from it altogether had he foreseen the amount of labor which its execution would involve. It will be proper to specify briefly the improvements which have been attempted in the American edition. 1. Since the death of Olshausen, a new and thoroughly revised edition of his Commentary on the Gospels has been published by Dr. Ebrard, his pupil, friend, and successor in the theological chair at Erlangen. The general character of Ebrard's alterations is stated by himself in the accompanying preface. He has performed his work with judgment and fidelity. Without modifying the general character of Olshausen's work, he has greatly improved it by correct- ing errors, retrenching superfluities, striking out objectionable pas- sages, and adding much valuable matter by way of illustration or correction. This (fourth German) edition has been adopted as the basis of the present edition, and been scrupulously followed through- out. The public has thus access to the latest and much improved German edition of the work. 2. Apart from these modifications, the translation itself has been subjected to a careful revision by a close and constant comparison with the original. Of the English work the editor would not speak in terms of unjust disparagement. It evinces fidelity and industry, and is in parts nearly unexceptionable. As a whole, however, it is marred by serious defects, sometimes mistaking, sometimes obscur- ing, and^ sometimes even directly reversing the sense of the original, and elsewhere injured by an awkward and unidiomatic style. The editor, therefore, has gone through the work sentence by sentence, correcting errors, clearing up obscurities, pruning redundancies, and, so far as might be, rendering the style more neat and idiomatic. He is aware that his work is but imperfectly accomplished ; but in regard to the more essential qualities of a version, viz., accuracy and clearness, he feels assured that the work will not be materially wanting. The nature and extent of his alterations will perhaps be best illustrated by a few examples. We present in parallel columns the two versions, confining our selections to the present volume. PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. EDINBURGH EDITION. Vol. I. p. 4. The life of Jesus presented such a fulness of the most varied appear- 'ances, and his discourses breathed so rich a stream of life upon the circle of his disciples, that single individuals were incapable of adequately comprehending the exceeding grandeur of his character. In Him there was revealed something that surpassed the power of single human individuals to ap- prehend. VoL I. p. 12. As in the Saviour, the Aoyof was manifested in a aupa, so in a comprehensive delineation of the life of Je- sus, the popular and temporal element in his manifestation must appear vividly associated with the apprehension of its spiritual import. AMERICAN EDITION. Page 137. The life of Jesus presented itself in so manifold a variety of aspects ; his discourses poured upon his disciples so rich a stream of life, that any single individual was utterly incapable of apprehending the overwhelming fulness of his character. In frim were disclosed elements which no single set of human faculties was adequate to grasp. Page 144. As in the Saviour, the Aoyof, Word, was manifested in a aupa, body, so, in a comprehensive delineation of his life, along with the spiritual, the national and temporal elements of his character required to be liv- ingly set forth. Vol. II. Matt. xiv. 13, p. 163, note. De Wette thinks that Luke places this feeding in a different locality from Matthew and Mark; he knows nothing of a passage across the sea, and conceives Bethsaida to have been on the western shore. Page 576, note. De "Wette thinks that Luke places this feeding in a different local- ity from Matthew and Mark ; that he knows nothing of a passage across the sea, and re- fers to the Bethsaida on the western shore VoL H. Matt. xii. 37, p 101. But the more that the word has reference to spiritual things, the more punishable becomes the abuse of it : yea, it is even the word, as the manifestation of what is in man, in which the whole nature of man is revealed. Page 465. And the deeper the signifi- cance of speech, the more culpable its abuse; nay, in speech, as the expression of the soul, is man's entire character revealed. VoL II. Matt. xiv. 22, p. 169. For it is Page 521. For we have here not so not so much an interposed influence brought much an influence brought to bear on na- to bear on nature, that is here spoken of (viz. ture, as a personal withdrawal from the con- in Christ's walking on the sea) the special trol of earthly natural laws, here, viz., that of difficulty hi this case consists hi his with- gravity, drawing himself personally from the control of earthly natural laws. Vol. n. Mark xv. 7, p. 178. In the next place, the KOI ov introduces the supplement- ary remark "and if any one says, Your property is consecrated to the temple, it is then unnecessary for him to honour his father and his mother." Page 528. In the next place, the KC& ab introduces the answering clause (the apodosis of the proposition): " if any one says, What would have been yours is consecrated to thu temple, he need not (ov [1%, he shall not) hon- our father and mother." Xll PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. EDINBURGH EDITION. Vol. II. p. 194 Then although typy is immediately explained at Matt. xvi. 12, as 6t.6axr/, yet this is not to be looked on apart from the whole circumstances amidst which it stands ; for, outwardly considered, there was much truth in the doctrine of the Phar- isees. AMERICAN EDITION. Page 542. Since although ^vftTi, leaven, ia immediately explained at Matt. xvi. 12, as dfdap?, doctrine, yet this is not to be re- garded separately from their entire moral condition ; for, outwardly considered, there was much truth in the doctrine of the Phar- isees. Vol. II. p. 201. The representation thus given exhibits the earthly and the heavenly as united in the church. Inasmuch as heav- enly powers are acting within the church, it is not dissevered by its perfected organs from the heavenly, rather has it its sanction in the heavenly. Vol. H. p. 209, Matt. xvii. 1. At the outset we summarily reject those views which reduce the fact itself to a dream, or an optical delusion, and we deal in the same way with the views as to thunder and light- ning and passing mists which some would substitute for the voice of God, and the light- cloud. Page 548. This representation exhibits an earthly and heavenly character and functions as united in the church. Con- trolled by heavenly powers, the acts of its earthly agents bear not merely human im- press and authority, but have their sanction in heaven. Page 555. At the outset, we summarily reject those views which reduce the fact it- self to a dream or an optical delusion ; views in which thunder, lightning, and passing mists take the place of the voice of God and the cloud of light. VoL II. p. 236,ch. xviii. 5. The simplest Page 577. The simplest explanation is, explanation is that this description of it is that this form of description is occasioned by occasioned by the preceding admonition (set the preceding mention (made distinctly by forth clearly by Matt.) to enter into the king- Matt.) of entering into the kingdom of dom of God. God. Vol. HI. p. 3, Luke xii. 50. He coun- He counsels therefore that they should in gels therefore that they should without delay season become reconciled to their adver- unite with their enemies. sary. These specimens have been taken almost at random, and they might be multiplied by hundreds, and in minor matters by thou- sands, even within the compass of the first two volumes. They will show the imperative need of a careful revision of the work. 3. It was the wish of the publishers to make the work more widely useful by a translation into English of the numerous Greek words and phrases scattered through the text. The Commentary of Olshausen is based on the original ; its citations are made almost invariably from the original ; and its criticisms and explanations are of course founded immediately upon the Greek text. The work is PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. Xlll thus designed primarily and almost exclusively for scholars. This its scholastic character the editor has felt it his duty fully to retain, and to make all his modifications in subserviency to this. He has, therefore, while translating the Greek words and phrases occurring in the text, retained the original, except in cases where it had been already once or twice given, or where nothing whatever was depend- ent on its retention. He has then (as, for example, where rrioTig, dtKaioovvr], 6 vibi; ~ov -deov, etc., occurred with no peculiarity of meaning, and merely interrupting the flow of the English sentence) silently replaced them by their English equivalents. This process might, perhaps, have been advantageously carried much farther, but the editor preferred erring in this respect rather in deficiency than in excess. In the purely philological and critical remarks, which have value only for scholars, he has of course rarely added the translations. In his renderings he has generally adhered to the language of the common version. When this was inconvenient, he has unhesitatingly deviated from it. 4. The editor hardly ventures to add as another advantage of this edition the brief notes which he has himself here and there in- terspersed through the volume. Annotating the Commentary formed no part of his original purpose. But in proceeding he could scarcely resist the impulse here and there to express his dissent from the particular expositions of Olshausen, and especially in what he deems some serious errors of doctrine he has felt bound to do so. With a general soundness of judgment, and a warm sympathy with evangelical truth, Olshausen is yet not free from the characteristic faults of his countrymen. He speculates sometimes with a subtlety and sometimes with a mysticism characteristically German, and sometimes bends philology to the support of the favourite here- sies of the German theologians. The editor has, therefore, both in minor and more important matters, occasionally added a note (signed K.) expressing his dissent. This he has generally done with the utmost brevity, choosing rather to suggest than elabo- rately argue the grounds of his opinion. The desire of brevity must be his apology for the dogmatical air which may occasionally char- acterize the notes. Of course it will not be understood that he has commented on all from which he dissented. He has introduced no modifications into the text, except that in two or three instances he has silently corrected an error in lexicography. XIV PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. With these remarks the editor submits the present volume to the public. The remaining volumes will follow, it is hoped, at no long intervals. If they shall subserve the interests of evangelical truth, the deep love of which has evidently inspired their author, the highest aim of the editor and the publishers will have been attained. A. C. KENDRICK. BOOHESTEB, August, 1856. AUTHOR'S PREFACE, THE plan and arrangement of this work, notwithstanding many alterations and additions in the details, remain essentially the same in this new edition of the Commentary, since I think I may take it for granted that, in these points, I have met the wants of our times. I regard it as my chief object to bring out the inward unity of the whole New Testament, and of the Scriptures gene- rally, and, by the interpretation, to introduce the reader to the unity of life and spirit in the Sacred Books. To have been con- tinually noticing interpretations which originate in entirely remote views, as well as to have been constantly opposing unchristian tendencies, would have rendered it impossible to enter into the spirit of the Bible, since in that way the flow of the spirit would necessarily have been interrupted. Exegetical lectures have to supply what is necessary in reference to the enumeration of differ- ent interpretations, to the refutation of errors, to grammar, archae- ology, and history. Hence it naturally follows, that, in this third edition, such lately published works as Strauss' Life of Jesus, and De Wette's Commentary (who professes to agree with Strauss in the principles, but would prefer a less extensive application of them, which is, indeed, evidently inconsistent, as Strauss has very justly demon- strated in reply to him, see "Berliner Jahrbucher,'" 1837, No. 1, ff.), could not be noticed by me, so far as there is a difference of prin- ciples between their authors and myself. In those passages where that difference was not involved, I have not omitted to notice these works also, but have used them as well as treatises more congenial to my own mind, among which I mention particularly Tholuck's masterly exposition on the Sermon on the Mount, in order by strict xvi AUTHOR'S PREFACE. impartiality to gather with ever-increasing purity the sense of the Word of God. Still it was very rarely that I gained any light from the works of Strauss and De Wette, even as to the externals of Scripture ; while I am greatly indebted to Tholuck's labours in every respect. Still, as the notorious work of Strauss contains a continued series of attacks on my Commentary, I avail myself of this oppor- tunity to explain my silence with reference to these attacks. At first, I determined to write a special work on the subject ; but the composition of it was prevented by protracted illness. Mean- while, such a flood of refutations is being poured forth, that I can- not even begin to write down my thoughts, because every moment brings some book or pamphlet, which has already discussed first this point and then the other on which I intended to enlarge. On the other hand, not a single work appeared in favour of Strauss ; and even in the few criticisms that were somewhat favourable, nothing new whatever was brought forward in confirmation of his view. All parties in the theological world are unanimous in the rejection of his work. This being the state of affairs, the danger to theology from Strauss' work may, we hope, be regarded as removed ; among the laity, indeed, it will do the more mischief. Of course science is not to expect thus to be freed from the conflict ; for even though the inapplicability of the mythical interpretation to the New Testa- ment has been evidently demonstrated, yet heroes will soon arise to call our courageous and unprejudiced Strauss a cowardly poltroon, full of superstitious assumptions, because instead of venturing to speak out plainly, he only now and then gently hints that Chris- tianity and the books of the New Testament are to him simply the product of unbounded fanaticism, or, to speak more decidedly, of a monstrous deception. As Dr. Paulus at first propounded his natu- ral explanation of the miracles amid loud rejoicing, and now sees it turned to ridicule by Strauss, who stands upon his shoulders, a similar result awaits the latter, with his mythical explanation. And unless we are greatly mistaken in reading the signs of the times, Strauss will not need, like his predecessor, to live to be eighty years old, in order to hear with his own ears the derision of his more decided disciples. The history of the world advances with accele- rated pace. The infant Antichrist struggles powerfully in the bosom of society, and hastens to its birth. May but the Church of Christ attain more and more to a knowledge of itself, so as to be AUTHOR'S PREFACE. xvii able to separate itself from all antichristian elements ; and may Christian science vigorously guard itself against the dangerous error of supposing that such excrescences of unbelief, as the hy- pothesis of the mythical character of the New Testament, necessarily belong to its course of development ! Such phenomena, theology ought to treat purely apologetically i. e., in that department which defends the domain of Christian science against attacks from without ; in its inward sanctuary such formations have no place whatever. In an apologetic point of view, I still intend to contribute some- thing towards a refutation of the mythical system, inasmuch as I propose to myself a renewed comprehensive investigation on the genuineness of the Gospels, to which Dr. Theile of Leipsic has kindly invited me in his work recently published against Strauss. If it be proved that our canonical Gospels are the productions of eye-witnesses of the facts, the applicability of the mythical inter- pretation of the life of Jesus vanishes most certainly and completely, according to Strauss' own confession. If God grant life and health, I shall proceed to this recasting of my earlier work on the genuine- ness of the Gospels, immediately after the completion of the printing of the third edition of the second volume. &$ooo VOL. I. 2 PREFACE TO THE FOUETH GERMAN EDITION. IT was not without a degree of apprehension that I acceded to the request of the respected publisher, to subject to a revision the . sainted Olshausen's Commentary on the Gospels. On the one hand, the Commentaries of Olshausen bear an impress of such marked peculiarity that the disturbing presence of a foreign hand would be immediately recognized ; on the other, I was aware that I differed so widely from my lamented teacher, not only in the interpreta- tion of many individual passages, but even in some more funda- mental views, that it seemed to me difficult, if not impossible, to steer between the opposite extremes of depriving the public of Olshausen's expositions, and of proving false to my own convic- tions. Finally, veneration for my ever to be remembered teacher interposed additional obstacles to any thing that looked like cor- rection. And still I could not conceal from myself that sacred learning had within the last fifteen years made such advancement, that this Commentary, if it was to perpetuate and extend its bene- ficent influence, stood assuredly in need of revision. I determined, therefore, upon the work, and proceed now to state to the reader the mode of procedure by which the proposed end might be most nearly approximated. I have frequently substituted the more for the less precise expres- sion. (Comp. e. g. at Matt. ii. 23. Olshausen thus : " the Evangelist has reference to that use of language which employed Nazarene in the sense of despised." I thus : " the Evangelist has reference to the fact that the Nazarenes were despised by the nation.") Manifest in- accuracies (e. g. in the same place the derivation of the name No^opet from 132) have been corrected. Polemical remarks which have no importance for the present time, have been erased ; and on the contrary, here and there more recent literary notices have been XX PREFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION". appended (as at Matt. ii. 21, on the death of Herod). I have some- times abridged widely extended discussions, removed repetitions, and in like manner thrown out occasional allusions to peculiar views of Olshausen (as e. g. on the trichotomy), which had been fully discussed elsewhere. The corrections thus far mentioned are manifestly of a nature which involves no change in the coloring and spirit of the Commen- tary. But where I have dissented from Olshausen's view in more important points, I have allowed his explanations to stand, and subjoined my own with the utmost possible brevity in notes signed E. at the foot of the page, or incorporated them into the text en- closed in brackets, [ ] ; here and there also I have added in the latter way mere explanations and expansions of the thought (as at Matt, vii. 15). It will of course be understood that I could not always, but only on more important questions, append my dissenting view, and hence I hold myself answerable only for that which I have thus actually added either in the foot-notes, or the bracketed remarks. In the order of events I differ, as is well known, widely from Olshausen. I have allowed his remarks, with their proofs, to stand unchanged, and in appropriate places have merely made a reference to my Kritik der Evang. Geschichte, removing only repetitions ; as e. g. where Olshausen after once, at Luke ix. 51, having developed his view in relation to the narrative of Christ's journey to Jerusalem (Keisebericht), then at the beginning of every new section repeats the statement that this belongs to that narrative. By many illustrative additions (e. g. at the parable of the field with its diversities of soil, of the unjust steward, etc.), I trust that I have added to the value of the book, and rendered to its readers a real service. May this Commentary in its present form continue to impart the same rich blessings which it has hitherto dispensed. DR. EBRARD. ERLANGEN, Sept. 1, 1853. PROOF OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE WRITINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. FOB INTELLIGENT READERS OF ALL CLASSES. TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF DR. HERMANN OLSHAUSKN, PBOFE68OB OK THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVKE3ITY OF EBLANGEJT. WITH NOTES, BY DAVID FOSDICK, JB. CONTENTS. MM PREFACE BY THE TRANSLATOR .......................................... xxv AUTHOR'S PREFACE .......................... . ......................... zxviii iHTRODUCTIOir ......................................................... CHAPTER L Of the New Testament in General CHAPTER H. Of the Collection of the Gospels. ......................................... xlii CHAPTER m. Of the Gospels individually, and the Acts of the Apostles .................... xlviii CHAPTER IV. Of the Pauline Epistles ................................................. Iviii CHAPTER V. Continuation. Of the Pauline Epistles Composed during and after Paul's impris- onment at Roma ................................................ Izzii CHAPTER VI Of the Epistle to the Hebrews ........................................... Jzzzii CHAPTER VIL Of the Catholic Epistles CHAPTER VHL Of the Second Epistle of Peter. .......................................... xcri CHAPTER IX. Of the Epistles of James and Jude ....................................... cri CHAPTER X. Of the Revelation of John. .............................................. Conclusion .............................. ..... PREFACE BY THE TRANSLATOR. THE author of the following treatise is known to those convers- ant with the theological literature of Germany, as a writer of con- siderable celebrity. He was born in 1796 at Oldeslohe in the Duchy of Holstein. He received his University education partly at Kiel and partly at Berlin. In 1822 he became theological professor at Konigsberg, in the remotest north-eastern part of the Prussian dominions, where he remained till, in 1835, he was called to occupy the same chair at Erlangen in Bavaria. His fame has been derived mostly from his Commentaries, as being his most extensive produc- tions. They are characterized by an almost utter absence of philo- logical display, although they are far from being deficient in learn- ing and shrewdness. The author prefers to exhibit results rather than the processes by which they were attained. His mode of ex- position is altogether more suited to common minds than the eru- dite, cumbrous mode pursued by most German commentators. To use the language of Professor Stuart, " the course of thought, and things rather than words, are his chief objects." The little work herewith given to the public in an English dress (published in German in 1832), is an attempt to present concisely and simply the present state of investigation concerning the genu- ineness of the New Testament. I do not know of a book upon the subject, in any language, which combines so popular a cast with so much comprehensiveness and justness of representation as are, in my opinion, manifested in this. The unlearned but inquisitive Christian may here find sources of reflection and conviction respect- ing the truth of the record on which he relies, that are not com^ monly accessible without the toil of severe study. There will of course be found in the work a tone somewhat alien from our English views and feelings. Reference is had to religious circumstances differing in some important respects from our own. This peculiarity of tone, however, does not, in my opinion, involve XXVI PREFACE BY THE TRANSLATOR. anything of a clearly mischievous tendency. Its influence will, I think, be useful. It is well to enlarge our minds through an acquaintance with the sentiments entertained concerning religious things by men as fully imbued with the spirit of piety as ourselves, who have been nurtured in circumstances quite different from those by which we have been affected. By comparison and inference, in such a case, we may be much benefitted. I would not be understood as assenting, without restriction, to all the views which this little work presents. They may be right, or they may be wrong. I feel content to launch them before the public, knowing that if right they will swim, and if wrong they will eventually sink. Of this, however, I am fully convinced (as may be judged from the present version) that the book is in the main a good one ; and I believe the public will endorse my opinion. In proceeding with the business of translation, I have been guided by the sense rather than the letter. The grammatical con- struction of the original has been altered whenever it was thought advisable to alter it for the sake of rendering the sense more per- spicuous and natural in English. I have in one or two instances ventured to qualify an expression which seemed to me too strong, but never in any case where the change was of much importance. For instance, I have altered inconceivable to hardly conceivable, etc. I have also, in a few cases, given biblical references in addi- tion to those furnished by the author. Many of the figures in the original references were (typographically or otherwise) erroneous, and have been corrected. Biblical quotations are presented in con- formity with our received English version, instead of being trans- lated from the German. The notes which I have subjoined are all designated by the letters TB. , D. F.JB. AUTHOR'S PREFACE. SEVEN years ago, when I published my history of the Gospels, it was my earnest desire to show the genuineness of all the books of the New Testament, in a small work, designed for intelligent readers generally. But, urgent as the necessity of such a work ap- peared to me even then, the execution of my plan has been post- poned to the present time ; partly because I w%s hindered from en- tering upon it by multiplied avocations, and partly because I hoped some one would present himself who was more capable of such an undertaking than I felt myself to be. For I knew but too well how difficult it would be for me to write simply and plainly, so as to become even intelligible to those who are not conversant with in- vestigations of such a description as must be noticed in this work. As, however, no one has yet appeared to present such a work to the Church of Christ, and the necessity of it has meanwhile much in- creased, nothing remained for me but to surmount my scruples, and execute the work as well as the Lord might permit. The necessity of such a work will have been evident to every one who has observed how certain positions as to the pretended spuri- ousness, or at least suspicious character, of the writings of the New Testament (positions which were formerly current only within the circle of the clergy), are now entertained among the common laity. It is easy to imagine the injury which is effected by such foolish opinions. To the audacious opponents of Divine truth they afford a fine occasion for repelling every attempt to win their assent to it ; and well-meaning persons often find in them occasion of doubts and anxiety, which they might be spared, did they only at least receive the antidote at the same time with the poison. Such an antidote, to obviate, or at least lessen, the destructive consequences of the views of many theologians in regard to the biblical books (views which are diffused abroad sometimes indiscreetly, and sometimes with a bad intention), I wish this little work to be considered. xxviii AUTHOR'S PREFACE. It will, at the same time, be my endeavour to correct the views of many not very clear-sighted, though well-meaning, persons, who appear to think that all critical investigations of the genuineness or spuriousness of the books of the Bible are, as such, wrong, and take their origin from unbelief. This idea is fundamentally erroneous, and not seldom arises from a religious conceit, to which there is a special liability on the part of persons who, conscious of their own internal religious life, dispense with all enlarged views of the con- nection of theology with the whole church of God on earth, and nevertheless are tempted to judge of things beyond the pale of their capacity. It would have been better, therefore, had all such inves- tigations been confined within the circle of theologians ; but, as the doubts to which we have referred have been promulgated among the laity, their refutation must also find a place in general literature. I should very readily have extended my investigations to the writings of the Old Testament ; but have not, in the first place, because the results of researches in regard to the Old Testament are of a less stable character than in regard to the New ; and, more- over, because those who are not theologians by profession have far less need of such inlormation in regard to the Old Testament as is here given concerning the New, inasmuch as to Christians the testi- mony of Christ and his apostles respecting the Old Testament, the canon of which was then completed, affords a much more certain evidence of its Divine origin (and thus of its genuineness), than any historical reasoning could exhibit, especially since, from the paucity of sources of information, the latter could not be so satisfactory as it is in relation to the New Testament. As to unbelievers, it is of much greater consequence to urge the claims of the New Testament upon them than those of the Old, because, so long as they are opposed to the former, they certainly will not admit the latter. In my closing remarks, however, I have endeavoured to designate briefly the right point of view in the determination of critical questions concerning the Old Testament. To conclude, I pray that the Lord may be pleased graciously to accompany this my book with his blessing, and cause it to serve as an admonition to many a scoffer, and to console and set at ease the minds of such as have been perplexed with doubts. OLSHAUSEN. INTRODUCTION. FOR fifteen hundred years the New Testament, as we now pos- sess it, has been generally current in the Christian church, and con- stantly used, as well publicly in the churches as likewise in the domestic circles of believers. This fact is admitted by the scholars of modern times unanimously, since it can be shown by the most certain historical proofs. Hence all investigations concerning the genuineness of the writings of the New Testament and the manner of its formation relate only to the first few centuries after the ascen- sion of our Saviour and the death of the Apostles. Indeed, it is easily seen that in reality everything must depend on this primitive period ; for after the New Testament was once made up and gener- ally admitted in the church, it could not be lost. Even before the invention of printing, it was spread abroad in all parts of the Chris- tian world by a multitude of copies, it being more frequently tran- scribed than all other books together. Hence, even supposing that the New Testament, say by war or devastation, had utterly perished in any country, it would immediately have been introduced again from surrounding ones. Of this, however, there is no example. Even such churches as entirely lost connection with the great Catholic church, and on that account sank to a very low point, yet faithfully preserved the sacred Scriptures, as is proved by the in- stance of the Ethiopian church, in which, on its discovery after the lapse of centuries, the Bible was found still in use. From the great importance of the New Testament to the church and the whole civilized world, it was a very natural desire on the part' of scholars to know exactly how this momentous book was formed. On entering upon this inquiry, however, in the perusal of the earliest writers of the church, accounts were met with which are somewhat difficult of adjustment. It was found that even before the compilation of all the writings of the New Testament into one collection, many fathers of the church, perfectly well disposed toward Christianity, had doubted the genuineness of particular books XXX INTRODUCTION. of the New Testament. This circumstance naturally arrested at- tention, and the next inquiry was, what grounds such early fathers might have had for scruples respecting these writings. In consider- ing this question, one thought he had discovered this reason, and another that ; and it often happened that these reasons were con- sidered weighty enough to justify the ancient doubts as to the gen- uineness of the books. It was at the Keformation, particularly, that this free investigation of the Bible began to extend widely ; and among the Reformers, Luther himself was specially remarkable for it. From these inquiries he became fully convinced of the gen- uineness of most of the writings of the New Testament ; but he supposed it necessary to regard some of them, e. g., the Epistle of James, and John's Revelation, as spurious. In this opinion he cer- tainly erred, particularly, as is now acknowledged by nearly all scholars, in his rejection of the Epistle of James ; but great as was, and still is, his authority in the eyes of many millions of Christians, his belief of the spuriousness of these two books has done no essen- tial harm ; they have maintained their place in the New Testament since as before, and the circumstance of his rejecting them has only shown the church the truth of the old remark, that even God's saints may err. From this example may be clearly seen, however, the total ground- lessness of the fear of those who imagine that such scrutinizing in- quiries must be, in and of themselves, prejudicial to the church. Such examinations of the origin of holy writ, and its individual books, are not only allowable, but absolutely indispensable; and they will injure the church no more than gold is injured by being care- fully tried in the fire. The church, like the gold, will but become purer for the test. In the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, the eternal revelation of Grod reposes in quiet security and brightness. A wonderful Divine ordination has preserved it to us without any essential injury, through a succession of dark ages. It exerts at the present day, upon all minds receptive of its spirit, the same blessed, sanctifying influence which the apostles claimed for it eighteen centuries ago. How, then, can these sacred books suffer from careful historical inquiry respecting their origin ? In- vestigation must rather serve to confirm and fully establish belief in their purity and genuineness. That this is actually the effect of really learned investigations is apparent, likewise, from the following instance. When the very erudite and truly pious Professor Bengel of Tubingen published his New Testament with all the various readings which he had been able to discover, many minds were filled with anxiety, thinking that an entirely new Testament would be the result in the end, if all the various readings were hunted up. They thought it would be better to leave things as they were. But INTRODUCTION. mark although 40,000 various readings were discovered in the an- cient MSS., the New Testament was hardly at all altered thereby ; for very few readings were of a nature to have any essential bearing upon a doctrine. Most of them consisted of unimportant transposi- tions, or permutations of synonymous words (such as in English also for and, etc.) ; and though some readings were more considerable (as, e. g., the celebrated passage, 1 John v. 7 : " For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one," which must certainly be regarded as spurious), still they are really of no more consequence. For such is the nature of the Holy Scriptures, that there are always many proof-passages for any important doctrine ; and hence, although these words are withdrawn from the Bible, their purport is still eternally true, and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity remains at the present time, as before, the doctrine of the church. Now that all the MSS. have been read and accurately collated, there is no further occasion for fear that somewhere or other something new may be discovered, which will thrust the old-loved Bible aside. Moreover, the principles on which scholars determine the right one among dif- ferent readings of the same passage are so skillfully devised, that it is almost impossible for a false reading to creep in ; and, should one individual err in this respect, another immediately steps in and cor- rects the error. It certainly is not to be denied that pious persons, who valued God's word, might well for some time be anxious at heart ; for one biblical book after another was stricken from the list of those which were genuine, and at last we seemed to have none but spurious books in the Bible ; though, on the other hand, it remained inex- plicable who could have taken pains either to forge so many spuri- ous writings himself, or to make a collection of them after they were forged. And then, what could have been the character of the de- ceitful author or authors (for, at all events, the books must hare been written by somebody), who could compose such writings writ- ings which for many centuries have consoled millions in calamity and death. It is now seen, however, that the reason why things were so for a time, was, not that men inquired and investigated (for no injury can ever accrue on that account), but that they did not prosecute the investigation with a right spirit and disposition. Every one can see that it is not a matter of indifference with what feelings we engage in investigations of this kind in regard to the sacred books. Suppose a man to see in the books of the New Test- ament only monuments of antiquity, of just as little or as much value as other ancient writings, to have felt nothing of the saving influence of God's word upon his heart, and on that account to be devoid of love for it ; yea, even to feel vexed that others should hold XXX11 INTRODUCTION. it so dear, and enviously and maliciously study how he might de- stroy their delight in this treasure such a man, with his perverse disposition, would rake up any thing and every thing in order to un- dermine the foundation of the church. Whether such corrupt mo- tives have really operated in the heart of any inquirer, no inan can determine. It is always presumption to take it upon ourselves to judge respecting the internal position or intention of any heart. We may even suppose one who rejects the whole New Testament to possess honesty and sincerity, which want only the necessary light of conviction. But the possibility that such motives may afi'ect these investigations, certainly cannot be denied ; and that is fully enough for our purpose. If, moreover, we look at the manner in which a Voltaire among the French, and a Bahrdt among the Ger- mans, have treated the sacred books, we find cogent reason to fear that they did not keep themselves free from such corrupt motives, however heartily we wish that God's judgment may pronounce them pure. This consideration is of importance, however, because we may see from it how all depends on this interior state of mind with which a man commences his undertakings ; so that even the noblest enterprise may by an unholy intention lead to pernicious results. But, setting entirely aside the possibility that a man may undertake investigations respecting the Scriptures in a positively corrupt state of mind, he may also do much injury therein from levity and fri- volity. If he is not sufficiently penetrated with a conviction of the great importance of investigations concerning the genuineness of the sacred Scriptures, if he does not treat the weaknesses of the church with sufficient tenderness (for she may feel herself wounded in her most sacred interests by the inconsiderate expression of doubts), it may easily happen that, at the first impulse, upon some supposed discovery, this discovery will immediately be blazoned before the world, without having been previously tested with soberness and care by all the means within reach. There is little reason to doubt that vanity is commonly at the bottom of this superficial haste ; for it is always delightful to what Paul calls the old man to be the author of any new and striking opinion. Had all inquirers been able prop- erly to restrain this vain desire to shine, much offence would with- out doubt have been avoided, and many a heart would have escaped considerable suffering. Still, in what department of life or knowledge have we not many errors to lament ? He who knows his own heart aright will there- fore forgive learned men, if they have now and then been governed by vanity or other wrong motives. The misuse of a good thing should not abolish its use ; and it is still true that all investigations respecting the sacred books, their history and compilation, are in themselves very useful and necessary, as without them we must be INTRODUCTION. entirely in the dark in regard to their true character. We will only wish that henceforth the God of truth and love may infuse truth and love into the hearts of all inquirers, and then it will not be of any consequence that many books have been pronounced spurious ; for, fortunately, they do not become spurious from the assertions of this or that man, and it is always allowable for another scholar to point out the errors of his predecessor. From this freedom of in- vestigation the truth will certainly come to light by degrees. If the thoughts here presented be duly considered, it will be readily seen, that he who has deep love for the word of God need not take it much to heart, that this or that scholar has rejected a particular book. After long investigation, and frequent assertions that most of the books of the New Testament are spurious, it is nevertheless now agreed among scholars generally, that all the lorit- mgs of the New Testament are genuine productions of the apostles. As to several of them, it is true, precise certainty has not been attained, but it is to be hoped that uniformity will be exhibited soon in regard to these likewise ; and, moreover, the difference of opinion in this view concerning several of these books is not so dangerous as it may appear. Concerning the Epistle to the He- brews, e. g., there is not uniformity of sentiment as yet. Many very estimable divines, with whom I feel myself constrained to coincide in opinion on this point, think that the Epistle was not composed by the Apostle Paul, but by some other very worthy member of the apostolic church. It is clear, however, that even though Paul did not write the Epistle, we cannot on this ground regard it as spuri- ous, inasmuch as its author is not mentioned in it. Hence the only question in relation to it is, who was its author ? and on that point it is hard to decide, from the obscurity of the accounts given by the ancient fathers of the church. All, however, regard this Epistle as genuine, i. e., it is universally believed that its author composed it without any intention to palm it off as the production of somebody else, for instance 'the Apostle Paul. Had that been his purpose, he would have taken care that the Epistle should at once be recog- nised as Paul's production, by assigning his name to it, or in some other way. The case is certainly different as to the second Epistle of Peter, against the genuineness of which many doubts are preva- lent. In relation to this Epistle, the first inquiry is not who was its author, for the apostle Peter is most clearly designated as such, but whether Peter was really and truly the author. If the conclu- sion be that the Epistle cannot be attributed to Peter, then it must be forged or spurious. It has been attacked with more plausibility than any other book of the New Testament ; and yet much may be said even in behalf* of this Epistle, as we shall see hereafter. We may therefore assert, that by Divine Providence some good has VOL. I. 3 XXXIV THE NEW TESTAMENT GENERALLY. already accrued from the rigorous sifting to which the books of the New Testament have been subjected in our day. True, it did at first seem as if the whole New Testament would in the course of time be declared spurious ; but when the first heat was over, and sober perspicacity returned, it was seen by inquirers that far the greater part of its books rested on a firmer historical foundation than most works of profane antiquity which all the world regard as genuine. Hence we may be of good courage in entering on the con- sideration of the individual books of the New Testament, for the result of critical investigation is by no means so much to be dreaded as is sometimes thought. First, however, we desire to premise something further respecting the Neio Testament generally. CHAPTER I. THE NEW TESTAMENT GENERALLY. THE oldest traces of the existence of the whole New Testament as a settled collection, occur so late as three centuries after the time of the apostles. The particular reason why so long a period elapsed before this body of writings became definitely determined, was, that its individual books, which of course existed before the whole collec- tion, were at first circulated in part singly and in part in smaller collections. For, so long as the apostles were upon earth, and the power of the Spirit from on high was in lively action in every mem- ber of the church, so long there was no sensible necessity of a book to serve as the norm or rule of faith and practice. Whenever any uncertainty arose in regard to either, application was made to one of the apostles, and his advice was taken. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul owe their origin to such inquiries. . Now some of the apostles lived to a very great age. Peter and Paul, it is true, died under the emperor Nero (67 A. D.) suffering martyrdom at Home ; but the Evangelist John, who outlived all the rest, was upwards of ninety years of age at his death, which did not happen till the time of the emperor Domitian, at the close of the first century. Hence, in the lifetime of the apostles, though their writings were highly valued, they were naturally not regarded as sacred writings, which were to be the rule of fiiith ; because there was a more immediate guarantee of truth in the living discourse of the apostles and their first companions, as also in the Holy Spirit, which was so powerfully exerting its influence upon the church. The apostolic writings, therefore, were indeed read in the public assemblies, but not alone, and not regularly. The book for regular public reading was still the THE NEW TESTAMENT GENERALLY. XXXV Old Testament ; and this is always to be understood in the New Testament when the Holy Scriptures are mentioned. Besides the apostolic writings, however, other profitable books were used for the edification of the church. In particular, we have still some remains of the writings of immediate disciples of the apostles, commonly called apostolic fathers, which were publicly read in the ancient churches. These men all lived in the first century and some time in the second. Among them are Clement, bishop of Home, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, Hermas, who was probably presbyter at Borne, and the well-known Barnabas. The Epistles of Clement and Polycarp, as well as the Book of Hermas, were read with special assiduity in the ancient churches. On ac- count of the great antiquity of these writings, the books of the New ^Testament are very seldom quoted in them, and much of what coincides with the contents of the New Testament, e. g., Christ's sayings, may have been drawn by these apostolic fathers from oral tradition as well as from perusal of the Gospels. Indeed the former source is perhaps most probable, since Christians certainly did not then read the Gospels so assiduously as they were read in later times, when they could no longer listen to the living discourse of the apostles and their immediate companions. The reason why so few written remains of the immediate disciples of our Lord are now extant, is in part the long lapse of time, which has destroyed many books once current, but in part also that the ancient Chris- tians laboured more than they wrote. The preaching of the gospel, and the regulation of infant churches, consumed so much of their time, that little remained to be employed in composition. More- over, in the first century it was always as when Paul wrote the fol- lowing declaration (1 Cor. i. 26) : " Not many wise men after the flesh, not many noble were called." For the most part only people of inferior standing joined the church of Christ ; and these had neither the capacity nor the inclination to labour with the pen. In these circumstances it is undoubtedly true that we find little infor- mation concerning the books of the New Testament in the first cen- turies. That they did, nevertheless, exist in the church we shall prove hereafter. But it might be expected, then, that although the most ancient Christians do not speak of their sacred writings, still the heathen writers of Greece and Eome must have done so, consid- ering the multiplicity of their works on all subjects. The heathen writers, however, who were contemporary with the apostles and the apostolic church, make no mention of the apostolic writings, because they cared nothing at all about the Christian church. They consid- ered the Christians as only a sect of the Jews, and despised them as much as they did the latter. They therefore credited the malicious reports which were circulated respecting the Christians, and treated THE NEW TESTAMENT GENERALLY. them, accordingly, as the offscouring of humanity. Such is the pro- cedure of Tacitus, a noble Koman, who relates the persecution of the Christians under Nero. Thus, of course, nothing could induce the Greeks and Komans to cultivate acquaintance with the writings of the Christians, particularly as they were distasteful on another account, from their not being clothed in the same elegant language as their productions. It was only when the number of the Chris- tians became so great as to excite apprehension, that they began to pay attention to everything of importance concerning this new sect, and so at last to their sacred books. But it is not till after the middle of the second century that we find examples like that of Celsus, who, in order to confute the Christians, made himself acquainted with their sacred books. The original condition of the primitive church, in which less stress was laid on the Scriptures than on the word of the apostles, was not indeed of long continuance. For the mighty outpouring of the Spirit, which, on the day of Pentecost, filled the disciples of our Saviour, had hardly been communicated to a considerable number of other minds, and lost its first power, ere erroneous schisms began to prevail in the churches. The germs of these may be discovered in the writings of the apostles. The first of these party divisions of the ancient church was that of the Jewish Christians. As early as in the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul speaks expressly of persons who desired to bring the Galatian Christians again under the yoke of the law. They wished faith in Christ and his redemption to be re- garded as insufficient for salvation, unless circumcision and the ob- servance of the law were added. The great preacher of the Gentiles, however, zealously opposes this restricted idea of Christianity, and shows that the soul must lose Christ, if it seeks to use any other means of salvation. It was the object of the law of Moses to lead by its injunctions to conviction of sin, and thus to a desire for salva- tion ; by its prophecies and types of Christ it was a schoolmaster to guide us to him ; but salvation itself could come only from Christ. Still, Paul was by no means of opinion that those who were Jews by birth must not observe the law when they became Christians ; he rather favoured their doing so, if the pious customs of their fathers had become dear to them, or if their own weakness or that of the Jews around them would be offended by the contrary course. Hence, the apostles who remained in Jerusalem till its de- struction, as did Matthew and James, observed the law invariably, and so did Paul likewise, when he was in Jerusalem. But the apostles, as well as their true disciples, were far from being desirous to impose this observance of the law upon the Gentiles also. The. milder and really Christian view of the observance of the law was constantly entertained by many Jewish Christians in Palestine, who THE NEW TESTAMENT GENERALLY. XXXVU in later times were called Nazareans. Many on the contrary, took the wrong course, which the Apostle Paul reproved in certain indi- viduals in Galatia, and these obtained the name of Ebionites. They, however, fell into other heresies besides their idea of the necessity of circumcision and observance of the law in order to sal- vation, particularly in regard to the person of Christ. They denied the real divinity of our Lord, and regarded him as a son of Joseph, thus seceding wholly from the true church of Christ. In precise contrariety to this Judaising division of the church, others entirely discarded Judaism. The instructions of the Apostle Paul had taken deep hold of their minds, and given them a strong conviction that the gospel went far beyond the formalities of Jewish practice, and would bring all nations under its sway. But from this perfectly correct idea they wandered into an opposition to the Old Testament, which was never felt in the slightest degree by the Apostle Paul. They remarked rightly, that in the Old Testament, the D i vine justice was most prominently exhibited, in the revelation of a rigorous law ; while the New most fully displayed the Divine mercy in the revelation of forgiving love. But this fact, which was necessary for the education of mankind, since the need of salvation will never be felt until the claims of justice are perceived, was em- ployed by them for the purpose of wholly disuniting the Old Testa- ment from the New, and referring it to a distinct author. This sect are termed Marcionites^ from Marcion, the man who urged this view to the greatest extreme. In connection with their opposition to Judaism they also held Gnostic opinions (whence they are com- monly ranked with the Gnostics), and these gave a hue to their ab- surd notion that the God of the Old Testament was different from that of the New. The Old Testament, they thought, presented to view a God of justice without love ; the New Testament one of love without justice ; while in reality the only true God possesses both attributes in perfection. It is easy to see that in these notions Paganism is mingled with Christianity. The sublime nature of the latter was admitted by the Marcionites ; but they could not look upon the other true form of religion, Judaism, as reconcilable with it. Hence, although they no longer revered the numberless gods of the heathen, they imagined the two attributes of God, jus- tice and love, to center in two distinct divine beings. Besides this ungrounded violence against Judaism, the Marcionites maintained a silly error in regard to Christ's nature, which was the precise op- posite of the opinion of the Jewish Christians. The latter denied his divinity, and the Marcionites asserted that he had no true humanity. The humanity of Christ, said they, was only apparent. In their opinion a purely heavenly vision was presented in the person of Jesus Christ ; his life and all his acts in life were merely XXXV111 THE NEW TESTAMENT GENERALLY. in appearance, designed to exhibit him to men in a human man- ner. This idea the Marcionites entertained in common with the Gnostics, properly so called, who did indeed judge more correctly than the former in regard to the mutual relation of Judaism and Christianity, but on other points maintained the most grievous errors. The seeds of their doctrine are referred to by the Apostle Paul, e. g., in 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18, where he warns against the heresy of Hymeneus and Philetus, who maintained that the resurrection of the dead had already taken place. For, as they denied the true humanity of Christ, they could not, of course, admit the corporeal resurrection of all men ; and therefore understood it spiritually of the interior vivification of the heart by the spirit of Christ. Undoubtedly this perversion of doctrine on the part of the Gnostics is to be referred to their belief in another being besides G-od. While they regarded God as a pure spirit, the fulness of all good and beauty, they looked upon matter as another being, the source of everything cor- poreal and visible, as also of all evil. It was from a mixture of the spiritual and the material that this world originated, and particu- larly man, who at one time displays so much that id lovely and ele- vated, at another so much that is low and base. Thus the only way to purify and sanctify man was, that he should be gradually freed from everything material, and by the divine germs of life within him, be brought back to God. It is easy to imagine what a distorted view of all the doctrines of salvation must be produced by such an idea, since holy writ nowhere countenances the opinion that evil resides in matter, but rather expressly refers it to the will of the creature, who, by disobedience to the holy will of the Creator, has destroyed in himself and about him the harmony which origin- ally prevailed in the whole universe. In this condition of things, then, when Jewish Christians, Mar- cionites, and Gnostics, to say nothing of other insignificant sects, were disturbing the unity of the church, it was seen to be neces- sary that every effort should be exerted to uphold the purity of the apostolic doctrines. But as, at the time when these sects became very powerful, the apostles were no longer upon earth, no direct ap- peal could be made to their authority, whenever oral tradition was adduced against them, these heretics appealed themselves to pre- tended communications from the apostles. The Gnostics in par- ticular, asserted that the deep wisdom which they taught in their schools was communicated by the apostles to only a few ; very simple Christian truth alone, they supposed was only for the multi- tude. What remained, therefore, since appeal to oral tradition from the apostles was of no avail, but reference to written authority ? This could not be altered and falsified like oral language ; it was THE NEW TESTAMENT GENEBALY. XXXIX "better suited to be a fixed, unchangeable norm and rule of faith, and could therefore be employed with exceeding force and efficiency against all heretics. Thus the time was now come when a sifting and separation of the many professedly Christian writings scattered abroad in the church was necessary. Moreover, the different sects of heretics had all sorts of forged writings among them, in which their peculiar opinions were presented in the names of celebrated prophets and apostles. Against such writings explicit declaration must be made, in order to preserve the true apostolic doctrine from mixture with erroneous and confused notions. As of course, how- ever, individual fathers of the church could have but little influence against the established sects of heretics, it was felt to be necessary that real Christians should be more closely and intimately united, and from the endeavour consequently made sprang the so-called catholic, i. e., universal church. The teachers of the church, as well as the laity, agreed together in the avowal of certain doctrines, which afterwards formed their creed, or the so-called apostolic sym- bol, because in them the true apostolic doctrines were stated in op- positioifc to heretics. Thus it became practicable to set firm bounds to the tide of corruption ; and thus the various sects were gradually suppressed by the preponderant influence of the universal church. Still some of them lasted down to the fifth and sixth centuries. This sifting of the various Christian writings demands a more careful consideration. It has been before remarked that certain edifying productions of estimable fathers, e. g. } Clement of Rome, Hermas and others, were publicly read along with those of the apostles. Still, however profitable the perusal of these writings might be, the bishops of the Catholic church correctly felt that they could be of no service against heretics, as these would not allow them any weight. Since, however, they commonly acknowledged the writings of the apostles, these and these alone could be appealed to in confutation of them. All such writings, therefore, as were al- lowed to be the compositions of other authors were first separated from the rest. If this had not been done, it would have remained uncertain in all subsequent time what books were properly to be regarded as pure sources of apostolic doctrine ; and at the time of the Reformation it would not have been so easy to restore the true uncoiTupted doctrine of Christ by means of the Scriptures, as it ac- tually was, on account of the circumstance that the genuine Scrip- tures were possessed in a separate, fixed collection. Now, in the endeavour to gather the genuine apostolic writings together by them- selves, some of them were very easily distinguished from the rest as the apostolic productions. These were called universally-admitted writings ; in Greek homologoumena. Among these were reckoned the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John ; the Acts of XI THE NEW TESTAMENT GENERALLY. the Apostles ; the Epistles of the Apostle Paul to the Romans, Co- rinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thes- salonians, to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon ; and lastly, two Epis- tles of John and Peter, viz., only the first and largest of both apostles. Among these writings, it is true, there appear two which were not composed by apostles, i. e., by members of the first circle of twelve men which our Lord Jesus gathered about him. [It is to be observed that Paul ranked with these in authority, partly because of his immediate call by the Lord (Acts ix.), and partly on account of his extended and blessed labours in behalf of the church.] We mean the Gospel of Mark and the work of Luke. We say the w'ork of Luke, for Luke's Gospel and his Acts of the Apostles do but make two halves of the same work, as is plain from the commence- ment of the Acts. There was no scruple on the part of the Catho- lic church to class these two works of assistants of the apostles with those really apostolic, because both wrote under the influence and approval of apostles. According to the unanimous account of the most ancient Christian Fathers, Mark wrote under the guidance of Peter, and Luke under that of Paul, so that Mark's was regarded as the Petrine, and Luke's as the Pauline Gospel. These universally-received writings of the apostles were divided into two collections. First, the four Gospels by themselves formed a collection called the Gospel. For, although this collection con- tained four narratives of our Lord's life, they were not regarded as different writings, but only as different aspects, or, so to speak, sides of one and the same work. Hence an ancient Father of the church, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in France, terms the four Gospels, the one four-formed or four-sided Gospel. The other writings consti- tuted a second collection, which was termed the apostle, or the preaching of the apostle. Probably the name took its rise from the fact, that at first the Epistles of Paul alone were collected together, and he was called the apostle, by way of eminence, especially in Europe, on account of his active labours. To this collection of Pauline Epistles the Acts of the Apostles were added subsequently, because it formed, as it were, an introduction to the Epistles, con- taining an account of Paul's travels and labours in the vineyard of our Lord. Later still were also added the two larger Epistles of John and Peter. Besides these generally admitted writings, there were others, which were indeed regarded by many as apostolic, but as to which some estimable persons entertained doubts, viz., the Second and Third Epistles of John, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Epistles of James and Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and John's Apo- calypse. Hence these were termed disputed ivritings, in Greek, Antilegomena. About the close of the second or the commence- THE NEW TESTAMENT GENERALLY. xl ment of the third century, most of the fathers of the Catholic church became united in believing the genuineness and apostolic origin of all these writings excepting the Epistles to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse. A third small collection was now formed of these epistles, and into it were transferred the two larger Epistles of John and Peter, which were at first contained in the second col- lection. Consequently, the third comprised seven Epistles, which were called the seven Catholic, i. e., universally-admitted Epistles, in contra-distinction from the various rejected writings. Out of these collections there now remained, therefore, only the Epistle to the Hebreios, and the Revelation of John. In regard to the Epis- tle, as has been already mentioned, no doubt was entertained of its genuineness ; the only controversy was, whether Paul was its author or not. At last, the opinion that it was Pauline prevailed, and it was introduced into the collection of Pauline Epistles ; though, as the collection was already made up, it was placed at the end, after the small Epistle to Philemon. In the Lutheran version of the Bible, however, the Epistle obtained another place, viz., between the Third Epistle of John and the Epistle of James, for reasons which will be stated hereafter. The whole question, therefore, in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews was of little consequence; for, if Paul did not write it, it is certain that the author of it wrote un- der his guidance (as will be shown more at length in the sequel), and the case is the same with this Epistle as with the Gospels of Mark and Luke. It is otherwise, however, with the history of the Apocalypse, which also will be particularly related hereafter. Al- though it has the oldest and most trustworthy witnesses in its be- half, indeed beyond most of the writings of antiquity, it still early met with numerous assailants, on account of its contents. True, many did not exactly regard it as spurious ; they only main- tained that it was written, not by John the Evangelist, but by an- other man of less note, bearing the same nama Others, however, felt such excessive dislike towards the book, that they declared it must have been composed by the worst of heretics. Yet here, too, truth fortunately obtained the victory, and the genuine apostolic character of this elevated production of prophetic inspiration was at last acknowledged. As the three smaller collections were already made up, nothing remained but to place it at the end of them all. This was precisely the position to which the Apocalypse belonged ; for, considering the Gospels to be, as it were, the root of the tree of life exhibited in the whole New Testament, and the Epistles as the branches and blossoms, the Apocalypse may be regarded as the fully ripened fruit. It contains a picture of the development of God's church down to the end of time, and therefore forms the con- clusion of the Bible as properly as Genesis forms its commencement THE COLLECTION OP THE GOSPELS. In order that the various writings and small collections might be permanently united, the smaller divisions were entirely given up in the fourth century, and henceforward there was but one great collection, containing all the New Testament writings. A decisive decree on this point was issued by a council held in the year 393, at Hippo, now Bona, in Africa. In itself considered, this union of the smaller collections into a single large one is of no consequence, and hence, too, it is of none that it took place at so late a period ; for, as early as during the third century and the commencement of the fourth, there was entire unanimity in regard to all essential questions concerning the books of the New Testament, as the fol- lowing particular history of them will evince. Still there was this advantage arising from the union of the apostolic writings into one body, viz., that they were in a more safe and determinate form, and might now be placed with the Old Testament as a coniplete^econd part of holy writ. CHAPTER II. THE COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS. 'i. OF the three smaller collections of the writings of the New Testament, which, as we have before stated, were in use in the ancient church, none can be traced further back than that of the Gospels. We find so many and so weighty testimonies in its be- half, that it would seem as though Providence designed that this palladium of the church should be in a special manner secure against all attacks. Not only is it the case that some of the most ancient fathers testify to its existence, as, e. g., Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr (all of whom lived in the second century after Christ, and were preceded only by the so-called apostolic fathers) ; but, moreover, the witnesses in its behalf be- longed to all parts of the ancient church. Tertullian lived in Car- thage ; Clement in Egypt ; Irenaeus was born in Asia Minor, and became bishop of Lyons in France ; Justin Martyr was born in Palestine (in Flavia Neapolis, otherwise called Sichem), but taught in Rome. Thus the testimonies in favour of the collection of the Gospels come from all the chief stations in the ancient church ; and this circumstance, of course, supposes its very general diffusion. The greatest number of testimonies, all proceeding from one pro- vince, would not be of so much weight as these coincident declara- tions from the most various parts of the world, as to the currency of the Gospels. A circumstance, however, still more important than THE COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS. xliii these testimonies from different parts of the ancient church is, that not only the members of the Catholic orthodox church, but the heretics also, were familiar with our Gospels. If it be considered, what violent mutual animosity there was between the fathers of the Catholic church and the heretics ; that one party would not adopt or receive anything at all from the other, but was rather disposed to reject it, for the very reason that it came from so detested a quar- ter ; no one can help seeing in the circumstance that both the Catholic church and the heretics were familiar with the collection of our Gospels an uncommonly cogent proof of its genuineness and great antiquity. For, had it been formed after the rise of these sects, either within the pale of the Catholic church, or in the midst of this or that party of heretics, it wpuld be wholly inexplicable, how it could have been introduced into these sects, from the church, or, vice, versa, into the church from these sects. Thus the collection of our Gospels must at all events have taken place before such sects arose ; for on no other ground can it be explained how these books, whicli were generally known and used before open rupture in the church, should have been admitted as genuine by both parties alike. Now the sects of the Gnostics and Marcionites originated as early as the beginning of the second century ; and from this circumstance we are entitled to regard the collection of the Gospels as in exist- ence at a period very near the times of the apostles. Besides the heretics, moreover, we find pagans acquainted with the collection of the Gospels. We refer particularly to Celsus, a violent opponent to Christianity, against whose attacks it was defended by Origen. It is true this man did not live till about two hundred years after the birth of Christ (we do not know the precise period) ; but it is, notwithstanding, a decisive evidence of the general diffusion and acknowledgment of the Gospels throughout the church, that they are cited and assailed by pagan opponents as official source.s of the Christian doctrines. For, had Celsus been aware that Christians themselves did not acknowledge these writings, it would have been an absurd undertaking to refute the Christians from the contents of the books. Further, it is a wholly peculiar circumstance in the history of the Gospels, and one which goes a great way to sustain their genuine- ness, that we nowhere find, in any writer of any part of the ancient worM any indication that only a single one of the four Gospels was in u^o, or even known to exist separately. All possessed the entire collection of the Gospels. It is true there is one writer, Papias, bish } of Hicrapolis in Phrygia, concerning whom there is no ex- press statement that he had all the four Gospels. But the manner in whicli Eusebius spe.iks respecting him in his Church History is such that there is nothing questionable in this silence. Eusebius THE COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS. adduces from a work of Papias, now not extant, some notices of Matthew and Mark. It is certainly true that nothing is said of Luke and John ; but this is undoubtedly because the ancient bishop had not made any particular observations on these two Gospels. His silence respecting them is the less an evidence that he was not acquainted with them, as the theatre of the labours of Papias was in the vicinity of Ephesus, where John lived so long, and moreover wrote his Gospel. On this account Papias must necessarily have been acquainted with it. Eusebius, moreover, re- marks, in the same place, that Papias was acquainted with the first Epistle of John. How much rather, then, with his Gospel ? Thus Eusebius says nothing concerning Luke and John, only because it was a matter of course that Papias was familiar with them, and the latter had not said anything special in regard to their origin. There were, moreover, some heretics who made use of but one Gospel, e. g. t Marcion used Luke, and the Ebionites Matthew ; but they had special reasons for doing so in their doctrinal opinions. They did not, by any means, deny the three other Gospels to be genuine ; they only asserted that their authors were not true disciples of our Lord. Marcion held the erroneous notion that all the disciples, with the exception of Paul, still continued half Jews. The Jewish Christians maintained that all the disciples, except Matthew, had strayed away too far from Judaism, and on that account did not receive their writings. In this state of the case there is clear evi- dence from their opinions also that the Gospels are genuine, and were in that day generally diffused in the church. Now, as the col- lection of our four Gospels existed so very early and so universally, the inquiry occurs, how it could have originated ? Shall we say that a particular individual or church may have formed it, and it may then have spread itself everywhere abroad ? This supposition seems to be countenanced by the circumstance of the general uni- formity as to the order of the four Gospels. A very few MSS. place John next to Matthew, in order that the writings of the apostles may be by themselves. Clearly, however, this transposition arose from the fancy of some copyist, and has no historical foundation. There is still, therefore, positive authority for the universally received arrangement. The most weighty circumstance against the opinion that the first collection of the Gospels was made in a particular place, and Diffused itself abroad from thence, is, that we have no account respecting such a process, though we should expect one, from the fact that John lived, and moreover wrote his Gospel, at so late a period. For this reason had the Evangelist John himself, as some suppose, or any other man of high authority in the church, formed the collection of the Gospels, we should, one would think, have had an account of its formation, as it could not have taken THE COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS. xlv place before the end of the first or commencement of the second century, which period borders very closely on that from which we derive so many accounts concerning the Gospels. But this same circumstance that we read nothing at all respecting a collector of the Gospels, that writers have been left to conjecture in regard to the manner in which the collection of them was made, leads to an- other view of its formation, which casts the clearest light on the genuineness of the books. It is in the highest degree probable that our Gospels all originated in capital cities of the Eoman empire. Matthew probably wrote his in Jerusalem, the centre of Judaism, where also, as appears from the Acts of the Apostles, a large Christian church was early gathered. Mark and Luke undoubtedly wrote in Home, the political centre of the empire, to which innu- merable multitudes of men thronged from all quarters of the world for the transaction of business. In this city, too, a flourishing Christian church was early formed, as is seen from the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, which was written before Peter or Paul, or any apostle, had visited Eome. Lastly, John wrote at Ephesus, a large and thriving city of Asia Minor. It was the residence of many learned and ingenious heathen. The large church at Ephesus was, according to the Acts, founded by Paul. It was fostered by the labours of John. Now, let it be considered how many thousands must consequently have been most exactly aware who wrote the Gospels, and it will be perceived that these circumstances afford weighty evidence of their genuineness, particularly as there is not to be found in a single ancient writer the faintest trace of any doubt in regard to it ; for the heretics, who, as we have remarked, disputed the Gospels in part, did not deny their genuineness (they rather fully admitted it), but only their obligatory authority. Now, as very active intercourse was maintained among the Christians of the ancient church, partly by constant epistolary communications, and partly by frequent personal visits, nothing is more natural than the supposition that the Christians of Jerusalem very soon transmitted the Gospel of Matthew, which was composed in the midst of them, to Borne, Ephesus, Alexandria, and other places, and that, on the other hand, those of Rome and Ephesus also transmitted the writings com- posed among them to the other churches. In every church there were archives, in which were deposited important documents. Into these archives of the church the Gospels were put, and as only these four Gospels were composed or vouched for by apostles, the collection of Gospels took its rise not in this or that place, but in every quarter simultaneously. This statement of the matter is, in the first place, strictly in accordance with the circumstances known to us in regard to the ancient church, and also the only one capable of explaining satisfactorily the existence of the collection in everybody's hands, THE COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS. while no one knew how and whence it originated. As, further, we find no other Gospel but these in general use, it is clearly evident that only these four were of apostolic origin. It is true we find in circulation in individual churches Gospels which appear to have differed from our own, e. g,, the church at Rhossus in Cilicia, a pro- vince of Asia Minor, made use of a Gospel of Peter, and in Alexan- dria one called the Gospel of the Egyptians was current. It is possible, however, that these two writings were either the same or at least were very nearly allied, and also bore close affinity to our Mark ; and in that case their use is as easily accounted for as the use of Matthew and Luke by the Ebionite and Marcionite sects in Recensions somewhat altered from the original. From this cursory view of the evidence in favour of the genuine- ness of the Gospels, it cannot but be admitted, that no work can be adduced, out of the whole range of ancient literature, which has so many and so decisive ancient testimonies in its behalf as they. It is therefore, in reality, a mere laboured effort to try to maintain and demonstrate the spuriousness of the Gospels. Since, however, this attempt is made, it may reasonably be inquired : Whence is derived any occasion for doubt ? Is not everything, without excep- tion, in favour of their genuineness ? We cannot but say, that no thorough, serious-minded scholar, would ever have denied the genu- ineness of the Gospels, had not the question in regard to their genu- ineness been conjoined with another investigation of extreme diffi- culty and intricacy. In the ardent endeavour to get rid of this difficulty, scholars have been seduced into the invention of hypo- theses irreconcilable with the genuineness of the Gospels. They should, on the contrary, have set out invariably with the admission of their genuineness, as an irrefragable fact, and then have em- ployed only such modes of solving the difficulty above alluded to as were based on the supposition of their genuineness. The difficulty is this. On a close comparison of the first three Gospels we dis- cover a very striking coincidence between them. This is exhibited, not merely in the facts and the style, but also in the order of narra- tion, in the transitions from one narrative to another, and in the use of uncommon expressions, and other things of the same cha- racter. Further, the coincidence is interrupted by just as striking a dissimilarity, in such a manner that it is in the highest degree difficult to explain how this coincidence and this dissimilarity, as it is exhibited in the Gospels, can have originated. This is a purely learned investigation, which* writers should have quietly prosecuted as such, without allowing it to influence the question respecting the genuineness of the Gospels. Such has been its influence, however, that some scholars suppose a so-called Protevangelion, or original Gospel, which the apostles, before they left Jerusalem, and scat- THE COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS. xlvii tered themselves abroad over the whole earth, prepared, in order to serve as a guide to them in their discourses. This writing is sup- posed to have contained the principal events of the life of our Lord. It was carried into all lands by the apostles. Now, in these differ- ent countries, it is said by the defenders of this hypothesis, additions were gradually made to this original Gospel. These were at first short, and thus arose the Gospels of the Jewish Christians, the Marcionites, and others ; afterwards they became longer, and in this way, at last, our Gospels were produced. Now, as it cannot be stated by whom these additions were made, this view is really equi- valent to making our Gospels spurious, for, according to it, only the little portion of them which existed in the brief original Gospel is of apostolic authority. But, setting aside the fact that the hy- pothesis must be fals% for this very reason, because it opposes the genuineness of the Gospels, which can be demonstrated by historical proof; this theory has been, moreover, of late utterly discarded by learned men on other grounds. In the first place, no ancient Chris- tian writer exhibits any acquaintance with such an original Gospel ; and is it conceivable that the knowledge of so remarkable a work should have been totally lost ? Then, too, the idea that a guide was composed by the apostles for themselves, in order to preserve unity in doctrine, is not at all suited to the apostolic period. At this period the Holy Spirit operated with its primeval freshness and power. This Spirit, which guided into all truth, was the means of preserving unity among the apostles. Not an individual of those witnesses to 'the truth needed any external written guide. Besides, this supposition solves the difficulty in question, respecting the coincidence of the Gospels, only in a very meagre and forced manner, while there is a much simpler way of reaching the same result far more satisfactorily. We must suppose more than one source of this characteristic of the first three Gospels. Sometimes one Evangelist was certainly made use of by another. This remark is applicable particularly to Mark, who undoubtedly was acquainted with and made use of both Matthew and Luke. Moreover, there existed short accounts of particular parts of the Gospel-history, such as narratives of particular cases of healing, relations of journeys, and the like. Now, when two Evangelists made use of the same brief account, there naturally resulted a resemblance in their history. Still, as each was independent in his use of these accounts, some variations also occurred. Finally, much of the similarity between them arose from oral narrations. It is easy to believe that certain portions of the evangelical history, e. g., particular cures, parables, and dis- courses of our Lord, were repeated constantly in the very same way, because the form of the narrative imprinted itself with very great exactness on every one's memory. In this manner the songs of THE INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS AND Homer and Ossian were long transmitted from mouth to mouth. Uniformity in an oral mode of narration is not sufficient of itself alone to explain the relation between the Gospels, because in prose it is impossible (in poetry it is much easier) to imprint on the memory minute traits and important forms of expression with so much exactness as would be necessary to account for the mutual affinity of the Gospels ; and, moreover, could their similarity be thus explained, the variations between them would only stand out in more troublesome relief. But that which cannot be effected by a single hypothesis, can be by that in conjunction with others. And here, perhaps, we may see the true solution of a problem which has so long occupied the attention of theologians. But, whatever opinion be entertained on this point, the investigation of it must al- ways be kept aloof from the question of the genuineness of the Gos- pels, which should first be established or denied on historical grounds. Thus will the collection of the Gospels be secure from all danger. CHAPTER III. THE INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS AND THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. OF the four Gospels, that of Matthew holds the first place in the canon. The author of this first Gospel bore, besides the name of Matthew, that of Levi also (Matth. ix. 9 ; Mark ii. 14), and was the son of a certain Alpheus, of whom we have no further information. Of the history of Matthew very little is known, in addition to the accounts in the New Testament. After our Saviour called him from his station as receiver of the customs, he followed him with fidelity, and was one of the twelve whom Jesus sent forth to preach. His labours as an apostle, however, seem to have been wholly con- fined to Palestine ; for, what is related of Matthew's travels in foreign countries is very doubtful, resting only on the authority of rather late ecclesiastical writings. But the information respecting him which is of most importance to our purpose is given with per- fect unanimity by the oldest ecclesiastical writers, who declare that Matthew wrote a Gospel. It is true that they likewise subjoin, equally without exception, that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, at Jeru- salem, and for believing Jews ; and that this account must be cor- rect, we know from the fact that the Jewish Christians in Palestine, who spoke Hebrew, all made use of a Gospel which they referred to Matthew. This Hebrew Gospel did, indeed, differ from our Greek Gospel of Matthew, for it contained many things wanting in our THE- ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Gospel ; but still it was in general so exactly like the latter, that a father of the fourth century, the celebrated Jerome, felt himself en- titled to treat the Hebrew Gospel expressly as Matthew's. It is a singular circumstance, however, that, while all the fathers of the church declare Matthew to have written in Hebrew, they all, not- withstanding, make use of the Greek text as of genuine apostolic origin, without remarking what relation the Hebrew Matthew bore to our Greek Gospel ; for that the oldest fathers of the church did not possess Matthew's Gospel in any other form than that in which we now have it, is fully settled. That we have no definite informa- tion on this point is undoubtedly owing to accidental causes ; but, since it is so, that we have not any certain account, we can only resort to conjecture in regard to the mutual relation of the Greek and Hebrew Matthew. Existing statements and indications, how- ever, enable us to form conjectures which, it is in the highest degree probable, are essentially correct. The idea that some unknown in- dividual translated the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and that this translation is our canonical Gospel, is, in the first place, contradicted by the circumstance of the universal diffusion of this same Greek Gospel of Matthew, which makes it absolutely necessary to suppose that the translation was executed by some one of acknowledged in- fluence in the church, indeed, of apostolic authority. In any other case, would not objections to this Gospel have been urged in some quarter or other, particularly in the country where Matthe' himself laboured, and where his writings were familiarly known ? There is not, however, the slightest trace of any such opposition to it. Be- sides, our Greek Gospel of Matthew is of such a peculiar character, that it is impossible for us to regard it as a mere version. Does a man, who is translating an important work from one language into another, allow himself to make alterations in the book which he is translating, to change the ideas it presents ? Something of the kind must be supposed to have been done in the Greek Gospel of Matthew with regard to the Hebrew. This is beyond denial, if it be considered merely, how the quotations from the Old Testament are treated. These do not coincide either with the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, or with the version in common use at the time of the apostles, viz., the Septuagint (which was executed by some learned Jews at Alexandria, several centuries before the birth of Christ) ; but rather exhibit an independent text of their own. Now, as sometimes the argument is wholly based on this independent character of the text in the citations from the books of the Old Test- ament, and could not have accorded at all with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, it is clear that our Greek Gospel must be something else than a mere version. It is rather an independent work, though closely allied to the Hebrew Gospel of the apostle. Now, since this VOL. L 4 1 THE INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS AND same work is universally regarded as an apostolic production, and as having been written by Matthew, there is no more simple and effectual mode of solving all the characteristics of the Gospel of Matthew, than to suppose that Matthew himself, luhen he had com- posed the Hebrew Gospel, executed likewise a free translation or new composition of it in the Greek language. It makes no essential dif- ference, if we suppose that a friend of Matthew wrote the Greek work under his direction and authority ; but Matthew's authority must necessarily be supposed to have been the means of the diffu- sion of the Gospel, as otherwise it is inexplicable that there does not appear the faintest trace of any opposition to it. No definite objections can be made against our supposition that Matthew wrote a Greek Gospel besides his Hebrew one. A single circumstance, however, may appear strange, viz., that Papias, the ancient^ bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, whom we have before men- tioned, a man who was conversant with persons that had themselves seen and heard our Lord, informs us that every one endeavoured to translate the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as well as he was able. Thus, according to this passage, our universally-received Greek transformation of the Hebrew Gospel was not commonly known in Phrygia, so that persons who did not very well understand Hebrew, made use, as well as they could, of the Hebrew Gospel. But the circumstance, that the Greek Gospel of Matthew was not yet cur- rent in the immediate vicinity of Papias, is no proof at all that it was not yet in existence. For, as Matthew's work was already dif- fused throughout the church in the Hebrew language, and the Greek Gospel of Matthew corresponded with the Hebrew in every essential point, it was very natural that the Greek Gospel should be circula- ted in a more dilatory manner ; and by some accident, it is probable, it was particularly tardy in reaching Phrygia. As, however, in the west generally, very few understood Hebrew, when the Greek Gospel of Matthew was once procured, that only was circulated there, and thus the Hebrew Gospel was completely lost in Europe. In Pales- tine alone, as the Hebrew was better understood, the Gospel in that language continued in use, though it was encumbered with divers foreign additions by the Jewish Christians. Thus the genuineness of the Gospel of Matthew is fully con- firmed on historical grounds, aside from its position in the collection of the Gospels. Kecent investigators have raised doubts in regard to its genuineness from internal considerations. They say, in par- ticular, that if the statements of Matthew, in the character of eye- witness (for he was one of the twelve apostles), be compared with the descriptions of Mark, who does not write as an eye-witness, it will be evident that the advantage is on the side of the latter. Everything which Mark narrates is represented in so graphic a man- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. li ner that it is plain he derived his accounts from eye-witnesses ; while the narrative of Matthew, whom we are to regard as himself an eye-witness in respect to most of his relations, is dry, and with- out the least vivacity. This remark is perfectly correct. Com- parison of a few passages will at once show how much more minute and graphic are Mark's descriptions than those of Matthew. This is particularly the case as to the accounts of cures. In these Mark frequently describes the circumstances of the sick person before and after the cure in so lively a manner as to make us imagine the scene really before us ; while Matthew, on the contrary, describes the oc- currence only in very general terms. Let a comparison be made in this view between the following accounts which Matthew and Mark give of the same occurrences : MATTH. viii. 28 34. " And when he was come to the other side, into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way. And behold they cried out saying," &c. MARK v. 1 19. "And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gad- arenes. (This is another reading for Ger- gesenes.) And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, who had his dwelling among the tombs ; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains, because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces; neither could any man tame him. And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, cry- ing and cutting himself with stones. But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, and cried with a loud voice, and said," &c. Respecting their cure, Matthew merely says (ver. 32) : " And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out they went into the herd of swine, and behold the whole herd of swine," &c. Respecting his cure, Mark says (ver. 13 and onward) : " And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out and entered into the swine," &c. " And they (that were in the city and in the country) went out to see what it was that was done. And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid." ix. 1826. 20. " And behold a woman which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and plucked the hem of his garment." V. 21 43. 25. " And a certain woman which had an issue of blood twelve years, and had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bet- tered, but rather grew worse, when she had Hi THE INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS AND heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment." Moreover, the whole account contained in verses 29 33 is in Mark only. xiv. 112. vi. 1420. Account of the execution of John the The whole narrative is given in Mark Baptist by Herod. with much more minuteness and vivacity. Such a difference in the style of narration runs throughout Matthew and Mark ; and it cannot well be denied that at first view there is something surprising in it. But careful examination of the object of the two Gospels plainly shows whence this different manner of narration in Matthew and Mark takes its rise, and thus does away with all the inferences which have been deduced there- from in opposition to the apostolic origin of Matthew. The reason why Mark describes the outward relations of our Lord's life in so vivid and graphic a manner is, that it was his special design to por- tray Christ's performance of the outward functions of his office. Hence, all which related to that, he details very carefully ; while whatever did not pertain thereto, he either entirely omits, as, e. irdvaic T ^S iKiaTohalf, i. e., perhaps, in all the Epistles. Now, though it would give an intelligible sense to these words to sup- pose that Peter meant to make his observation concerning Paul's Epistles generally, of which he presumed some might, and some might not, have come to the knowledge of those to whom he wrote ; still, it can hardly be disputed, that his phraseology becomes much more natural, if we suppose a current collection of the Epistles. T. THE PAULINE EPISTLES. that some spurious ones obtained general circulation. No one, per- haps, could then say with certainty, whether Paul wrote such a particular Epistle or not ; for it is not conceivable that Paul should at once have told every body he knew how many Epistles he had written ; and thus one might be personally acquainted with Paul, and still be deceived by an artfully-contrived Epistle. But take the case as it is. Were the Epistle to the Ephesians, against which, as we shall see, objections have been raised, really spurious, forged in Paul's name, we readily admit that it might have been received as genuine in the whole church beside, for it is as like Paul's Epistles as one egg is like another ; but could it have been acknowledged as genuine in Ephesus itself, and the Asiatic churches connected with the Ephesians ? Can we suppose that the Ephe- sians had so little regard for the great founder of their church, that they did not even know whether their beloved preacher had or had not written them a letter while in bonds ? And can they have been so totally wanting in sensibility to friendship and love, as not to preserve the apostle's communication, when every man, at all sus- ceptible of emotions of friendship, is anxious to preserve what has been traced by a beloved hand ? It is hence plain, that a spurious Epistle to the Ephesians must have been known in Ephesus as what it really was, a forged production ; and it is impossible to sup- pose, that if the Epistle had been disputed by any considerable church, and particularly by the very one to which it purported to have been sent, the opposition should have been so completely sup- pressed. The declaration of the Ephesian churcii that they had re- ceived no such Epistle, that they had not the original in their archives, would have been sufficient to destroy its credit. To this it is added, that all the Epistles of Paul go beyond ge- neral expressions, such as may be easily invented ; that they exhi- bit a definite concrete 1 purport, which has reference to the particular wants of each church, and its manifestations as to Christian life. Such representations of actual facts, in regard to the ancient churches, can have proceeded only from immediate contact with them, and consequently certify us of the genuineness of the Pauline Epistles. With all that is of a special nature, however, in each particular Epistle of Paul, there is observable, in all together, a uniformity of style, and a unity in doctrinal ideas, which wholly prevents suspicion respecting the genuineness of the epistolary col- lection. For the usual reason of forging writings in the name of another is, that the forger wishes to give currency to a favourite 1 This term, in the sense in which it is here used, is borrowed from logic. In that science, it is known, abstract and concrete terms are contra-distinguished. An abstract term is one signifying some attribute, without reference to any particular subject ; a con- crete term designates both the attribute and the subject to which it belongs. T. THE PAULINE EPISTLES. idea under some celebrated name. In no Epistle, however, is there any prominent idea which is remote from the circle of Pauline doc- trine, and seems to be a foreign idea clothed with the costume of Paul's style. We rather find every where the same main thoughts which actuated the life of Paul, running through the entire collec- tion, and giving their stamp to the whole. The principal evidence, however, of the genuineness of the Paul- ine Epistles, regarded in a historical light, is the circumstance, that we can assign to the Epistles their exact places in the life of the Apostle Paul by following the Acts of the Apostles. Thus are they most fully and firmly bound one to another, and all to the Acts of the Apostles. This arrangement of the individual Epistles in ac- cordance with the thread of Paul's life, is effected in such a man- ner as to show in chronological order the occasions of their composi- tion, and their strict relations to his known movements. Paul, the great apostle of the Gentiles, who, as is well known, was at first named Saul, was a native Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, and was born in Tarsus in Cilicia. In order to perfect himself in the knowledge of the law of his native country, he early betook him- self to Jerusalem, where he was taught by the celebrated Gamaliel. His zeal for the hereditary observances of his countrymen caused him to persecute the Christians, as soon as he had obtained knowl- edge of them, with all the vehemence of his fiery nature. At the death of Stephen, the first Christian martyr, he was busy keeping the clothes of his murderers while they stoned him. (Acts vii. 57 seq.) From Jerusalem Paul betook himself to Damascus, to stir up the Jews there also against the Christians ; but the Lord Jesus ap- peared to him before the city in his divine glory, and showed him who it was that he persecuted. (Acts ix. 2226). As Paul had not persecuted the Christians from intentional wickedness, or from carnal selfishness, contrary to his interior conviction, but rather with the honest idea that he was thereby doing God service, the divine light which enlightened his dark mind by this vision at once pro- duced an entire change in his feelings. With the same ardent zeal for truth and right which he had manifested in persecuting the Gospel, he now defended it ; though his zeal was indeed purified and made holier by the Spirit of the Lord. After a season of quiet reflection' and repose, such as he needed to perceive the greatness of that internal change which he had undergone, and the depth of the new principle of life within him, Paul began to make known the conviction he had just obtained. It was in Antioch (about 44 A. D.) that Paul began formally to preach ; and he taught in this city, along with Barnabas, a whole year. After a journey to Jerusalem, whither he carried money that had been collected for the poor in THE PAULINE EPISTLES. that city, the elders of the church at Antioch designated him as a messenger to the Gentiles ; and he with Barnabas set out on the first missionary expedition, about 45 A. D. It extended no farther than the neighbouring countries of Asia Minor. Paul travelled through Cyprus to'Perga in Pamphylia, and Antioch in Pisidia, and returned through Lystra, Derbe, and Attalia by sea to Antioch. Consequently, on his first missionary enterprise, the apostle did not visit any of the cities or provinces to which he wrote Epistles. On his return to Antioch he found that some strict Jewish Christians had come thither from Jerusalem, and excited dissensions. Paul had begun to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, and in such a way as to dispense with the observance of the Mosaic law as a necessary duty. Many Jewish Christians could not rise to the level of this evangelical freedom in regard to the external law. Even Peter at first adhered so strenuously to the forms of Jewish practice, that nothing but a vision could bring him to see, that under the New Testament, the Mosaic law, in regard to meats, had lost its external importance. (Acts x. 11 seq.) In order to come to a fixed decision on this important point, the church at Antioch determined that Paul and Barnabas, with several companions, should proceed to Jerusalem to present this question before the Apostles. They there declared what God had wrought by them among the Gentiles ; Peter testified the same in regard to his labours ; and James, the brother of our Lord, showed that it was foretold, in the prophecies of Scripture, that the Gentiles likewise should be called into the church of God. On these grounds the apostles, with the elders and all the church at Jerusalem, determined to send deputies to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, and communicated their judgment in a letter carried by them to the church at Antioch. This important transaction at Jerusalem, which publicly announced the character of Christianity as an universal religion, is called the council of the Apostles. It was held about the year 52 A. D. The decision of this apostolic body was of the utmost consequence to the Apostle Paul, as in his subsequent labours he had to contend constantly with nar- row-minded Jewish Christians, who wished to impose the Mosaic law upon the Gentiles also as essential to salvation. Against these Paul now advanced, not only his own personal influence, but the authority of all the apostles. This, at least, was effected thereby that the supporters of the ceremonial law and its perpetual validity were compelled to secede from the universal apostolic church, and form themselves into a distinct sect. It is true, however, that their opposition to the Apostle Paul was continued with extreme obsti- nacy ; and we find in his Epistles numberless allusions to the perse- cutions which he encountered at their hand. Soon after the apostolic council (53 A. D.) Paul undertook his THE PAULINE EPISTLES. IxV second great journey. He separated from Barnabas, who united with his kinsman Mark in preaching the Gospel. Paul took Silas as his companion instead of Barnabas. He directed his course first to the churches founded on his previous journey ; and thence on- ward to Galatia, and to Troas, on the western coast of Asia Minor. Thence the Lord conducted him by a vision in a dream, into Mace- donia, where he founded the church of Philippi ; and then went to Thessalonica. (Acts xvi. 10 seq. xvii. 1 seq.) Unfortunately, Paul could remain only about three weeks in the latter city, for, as he met with much success among the proselytes that had connected themselves with the Jewish synagogues, there arose an uproar against him among the Jews, who actually compelled him to leave the city, and flee to Bersea. (Acts xvii. 10.) As, however, the Jews in this place likewise vented their rage against the apostle of our Lord, Paul betook himself to Athens, where also some hearts were warmed by the fire of his preaching. He next proceeded on- ward to Corinth. Here, in one of the great cities of antiquity, where luxury and debauchery had reached their highest pitch, but where, on that very account, a strong desire for salvation was readily excited, Paul laboured with remarkable success for more than a year and a half. He found there a Jewish family from Eome, Aquila, and his wife Priscilla, celebrated in the history of the ancient church. As Aquila pursued the same craft with Paul, the latter lived and wrought with him, and besides discoursed in the house of a certain Justus. From hence Paul wrote the first Epistles among those still preserved to. us, viz., the two Epistles to the Thessalonians. Now, if we compare the tenor of the Epistles with the situation of the apostle, and their relation to the church at Thessalonica, we shall find them throughout conformable to the circumstances. As Paul was unable to preach in Thessalonica more than three weeks, he must naturally have been very anxious respecting the fate of those who believed in that city ; he feared that they might again fall away on account of the persecutions which threatened them. Hence his apprehensions had already induced him, as soon as he arrived at Athens, to send Timothy from thence to Thessalonica, in order to learn what was really the condition of the church. Timothy rejoined him at Corinth ; and his mind being set at rest by the in- formation which Timothy communicated, he wrote the first Epistle, for the purpose of confirming and establishing the Thessalonians in the faith to which they had so faithfully adhered. (Acts xvii. 15 ; xviii. 5 ; 1 Thess. iii. 2, 5, 6.) It is a circumstance entirely consonant with what we must suppose to have been the situation of the Christians in Thessalonica, that they did not rightly comprehend the doctrine of our Lord's resurrection. This would naturally be the case from the shortness of the period during which they enjoyed VOL. I. 5 THE PATJLINE EPISTLES. \ the apostle's instructions. (1 Thess. iv. 13 seq.) They feared that those believers who might die before the coming of our Lord, would be shut out from the joys attendant on the Messiah's reign upon earth. The apostle, however, sets them right in regard to their fear, showing them that there would be a twofold resurrection. Those who had fallen asleep in faith respecting the Saviour, would not rest till the general resurrection, but would be raised up at the coming of Christ, and would behold the Lord with those who were alive. The same subject also soon afterward caused the Apostle Paul to write the second Epistle to the Christians at Thessalonica, also from Corinth. The explanation of Paul had indeed quieted the apprehension of the believers of that city in regard to those of their number who met with an early death ; but some expressions used by Paul in his first Epistle (particularly 1 Thess. iv. 17), together with false rumours respecting his view of the proximity of our Lord's coming, had led some susceptible minds to the idea that this im- portant event not only might, but must, take place very soon. Thus they openly designated the period of our Lord's return, in total contrariety to Paul's meaning, who did indeed, with them, hope and ardently desire that our Lord might come in their time, and by no means stated expressly that he would not do so, since that would have been a negative determination of the point ; but main- tained the possibility that he would, and founded thereon, after the example of Christ himself, an exhortation to constant watchfulness. In order, therefore, to moderate the excessive disposition of the Christians at Thessalonica to look upon this great event as neces- sarily about to take place in their own time, Paul presented to view certein things which must all take place before it. From the consideration of these points, it could not but be evident to the Thessalonians, that this event could not take place so suddenly as they anticipated, and thus their excited minds would probably be quieted. In these respects, as regards the state of things at that time, the two Epistles possess entire and undeniable historical keep- ing ; and we shall not err widely from the truth if we assign their composition to the years 54 and 55 of the Christian era. From Corinth the Apostle Paul now returned to Antioch, whence he had been sent. (Acts xviii. 22.) Without, however, remaining long at rest, he in the following year (57 A. D.) entered upon his third missionary tour, going first to Galatia again, where he had preached on his second tour, and then to the wealthy and celebrated city of Ephesus, where he abode more than two years. From this city Paul wrote first to the Galatians, and subsequently to the Co- rinthians. The Epistle to the Galatians was occasioned by those same Jewish Christians, of whom we have before remarked, that they constantly strove to cast hindrances in the way of Paul's opera- THE PAULINE EPISTLES. tions. The Galatian churches, which Paul, on his second visit to Galatia (Gal. iv. 13), had found walking in the true faith, had been misled by these men in regard to the requirements of religion. Through the idea that the observance of the Jewish ceremonial law was essential to salvation, the Galatian Christians were led to regard circumcision, the solemnization of the Sabbath and of the Jewish feasts, and other ordinances of the Old Testament, which the New Testament valued only from their spiritual signification, as of worth in an external view, and in this way suffered themselves to lose sight of the interior life of faith. The object of the apostle, therefore, in his Epistles, was to develope thoroughly to the Galatians the rela- tion between the law and the Gospel, and to show that, -in the spir- itual freedom conferred by the latter, the external rites of the former might, indeed, be observed, but that they must be observed in a higher manner, i. e., spiritually. Previously, however, he makes some remarks respecting himself personally. For, as the Jewish Christians presumed to dispute Paul's apostolic authority, he found himself compelled to vindicate it by a historical account of himself. He states (i. 12 seg.), that he did not receive his Gospel from man, but immediately from God ; that at first he had persecuted the church of God, but that God, who had called him from his mother's womb, had been pleased to reveal his Son in him, that he might preach him to the heathen, through the Gospel. This evidently re- fers to the event of our Lord's appearance to Paul near Damascus, on which occasion the Lord said to him, " I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet : for I have ap- peared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee ; delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." (Acts xxvi. 15 18.) This reference to so pe- culiar occurrences in Paul's life exhibits a sufficient security for the genuineness of this Epistle ; and, in connection with its entire COIL- tents, as also with its style, has sufficed to place it for ever beyond suspicion. An occasion equally sad in respect to the apostle gave rise to the first Epistle to the Corinthians, which was likewise written from Ephesus. Before the first of the Epistles which are in our posses- sion, Paul had written another to Corinth (1 Cor. v. 9), which, how- ever, has perished. We have, indeed, a pretended Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, which claims to be this lost Epistle, but a slight examination is sufficient to manifest its spuriousness. Moreover, THE PAULINE EPISTLES. this Epistle of Paul was regarded as lost by all Christian antiquity. This first Epistle, as is shown by 1 Cor. v. 1 9, was occasioned by the circumstance, that an individual in the Corinthian church had matrimonial intercourse with his mother-in-law, the wife of his de- ceased father. Paul pointed out to the church the necessity of ex- cluding from among them him who sustained this incestuous rela- tion, that he might be awakened to penitence. To this Epistle of Paul, the Corinthian Christians replied in such a way, as to show plainly that they misunderstood some parts of it, particularly what Paul had said respecting the avoidance of lasciviousness. These misapprehensions are corrected by Paul in the first of the two Epistles which have been preserved to us. He likewise speaks in this same letter of another important circumstance in regard to the Corinthian church, which presents considerable coincidence with the situation of the Christians in Galatia. It is that some of the Jew- ish Christians, who had excited dissensions among the believers there, had come to Corinth also. True, some had remained faithful to Paul ; but others appealed, in contradiction of his authority, to Peter (Cephas), although he agreed perfectly with Paul in his views respecting the law. They probably objected to the Apostle Paul, as did the Jewish Christians in Galatia, that he had not, like Peter, known our Lord personally. Besides these two parties, Paul men- tions two others (1 Cor. i. 12), the distinctive characteristics of which, however, are uncertain. There were, therefore, divisions in the Corinthian church, and from these had proceeded manifold dis- orders. Paul's first Epistle is occupied with the reconciliation of the former, and the removal of the latter. Our first Epistle to the Corinthians comprises such an abund- ance of peculiar circumstances entirely conformable with the situa- tion of the church in its earliest days, that we cannot for a moment suppose it possible that it is a forgery. Moreover, particular facts mentioned in it coincide most exactly with the events of Paul's life, as known from the Acts of the Apostles. Thus, according to Acts xix. 22, he sent away his two companions, Timothy and Erastus, from Ephesus, a short time before he himself left the city ; and, ac- cording to 1 Cor. iv. 17, likewise, he had despatched Timothy to the Corinthians. According to the same passage in the Acts, Paul pur- posed soon to leave Ephesus, and travel through Achaia (this was the Greek province in which Corinth was situated) to Jerusalem, and the same thing is indicated by 1 Cor. xvi. 5. Thus, all circum- stances unite to give a sure historical basis to the Epistle. As its composition must be placed a little before Paul's departure from Ephesus, it was probably written about 59 A. D., while the Epistle to the Galatians may have been written about the year 58 A. D. Before the Apostle Paul left Ephesus, then, he sent Titus with THE PAULINE EPISTLES. a special commission to Corinth. He hoped to be able to waSt for him in Ephesus, in order to receive an account of the troubled state of affairs in the Corinthian church, and of the reception which his Epistle encountered. But a sudden uproar created by Demetrius the silver-smith (Acts xix. 24 seq.}, who was himself injured in re- spect to the gains which he derived from the sale of small silver models of the celebrated temple of Diana at Ephesus, compelled him to leave the city earlier than he wished. In Macedonia, how- ever, whither Paul immediately betook himself, he again met with Titus, who then informed him particularly of the condition of the church at Corinth, and the impression which his Epistle had pro- duced. This account induced the Apostle to write the /Second Epistle to the Corinthians, from Macedonia. The contents o this other Epistle, which was written a few months after the first, bear so close a relation to the contents of the first, that the iden- tity of the author is, thereby alone, made sufficiently evident. In the second chapter, e. g., we find mention again of the incestuous person, whom Paul had enjoined it upon the church to exclude from communion with them. As he had now been excommunicated, Paul speaks in his behalf, that he might not sink into utter des- pondency (2 Cor. ii. 7). Of most importance, however, are the par- ticular expressions in regard to those Jewish Christians who deso- lated the Corinthian church as well as others. Titus had informed the apostle with what an arrogant disposition they had received his letter. Against these, therefore, he expresses himself with the ut- most severity, while he treats those who remained faithful to the truth, with suavity and great kindness. In rebuking the perversity of these Judaizers, he feels it necessary to speak of himself ; for these proud sectaries not only rejected the apostolic authority of Paul, but also sought by their calumnies to deprive him of the honour of being the most successful labourer in our Lord's vineyard. With noble plainness, therefore, Paul boasts of all that the Lord had done for him and through him ; and the further removed this plainness was from false humility, and the less he avoided giving ground for the imputation of appearing arrogant and self-conceited, the more likely was his account of himself to make an impression upon all his opponents. We do not know definitely what effect this Epistle produced upon the state of things at Corinth ; but, from the subsequent flourishing condition of the Corinthian church, we may with great probability infer that Paul's Epistle contributed essen- tially to the annihilation of divisions. At all events, the Epistle is so completely Pauline, and harmonises so exactly with all known historical circumstances, that its genuineness has never been con- tested either in ancient or modern times. What was not effected by the Epistle of Paul to the church of 1XX THE PAULINE EPISTLES. Corinth, was undoubtedly accomplished by the apostle's personal presence in this metropolis. For, from Macedonia Paul went to Achaia (Acts xx. 3), and abode there three months. The greater part of this time he certainly spent in Corinth, and from hence he wrote the Epistle to the Romans, shortly before his departure from Corinth for Jerusalem in order to carry a collection of alms for the poor of that city (Acts xxiv. 17 seq. Horn. xv. 25, 26). This im- portant Epistle (viz., that to the Romans) bears the stamp of a gen- uine apostolic letter so completely in both thought and language, that neither ancient nor modern times have advanced a single doubt as to its origin. The particular doctrine which Paul presented to view more frequently and more prominently than any other apostle, viz., that man is saved by faith in him who was crucified and rose again, and not by the works of the law, either ceremonial or moral, forms the central topic of the Epistle to the Romans ; and, more- over, all the historical allusions which occur in it are entirely suit- able to the circumstances under which it was written. Paul, e. g., according to this Epistle (Rom. i. 12, 15 ; Acts xxiii), had not yet been in Rome when he wrote it ; and this agrees exactly with the statement of the apostle in Acts xix. 21. The many persons whom he salutes at the end of the Epistle, he became acquainted with from his numerous travels in Asia Minor and Greece ; for, as there was a general conflux to Rome from all quarters, and also a general dispersion thence, it being the centre of the world, there was no city in which Romans did not reside, or of whose inhabitants many were not constrained by circumstances to journey to Rome, or to es- tablish themselves there as residents. On account of this import- ance of the city of Rome, which must necessarily have been com- municated to the church in that place, there is sufficient proof of the genuineness of this Epistle in the single circumstance that this church, in which Paul afterwards abode some years, never con- tradicted the universal opinion that Paul wrote this Epistle to them, but rather rejoiced in being honoured with such an apostolic com- munication. Hitherto we have seen the celebrated apostle of the Gentiles con- stantly labouring with freedom and boldness ; but his departure from Corinth brought upon him a long and cruel imprisonment. For Paul immediately returned from Corinth to Macedonia, em- barked there at Philippi (Acts xx. 3 seq.) and sailed along the coasts of Asia Minor. At Miletus he called to him the elders of the church of Ephesus (Acts xx. 17 seq.) and took pathetic leave of them ; for he was persuaded that he should never again see these beloved brethren (xx. 38). About the year 60 A. D. the apostle arrived at Jerusalem, having passed through Caesarea ; but was there immediately arrested (Acts xxii.) and carried back to Caesarea THE PAULINE EPISTLES. (Acts xxiii. 31 seq.) Here lie was indeed examined by the pro- consul Felix ; but as lie could not pronounce sentence against him and hesitated to release him, Paul remained two years in captivity. At the end of that time there came another proconsul, Porcius Festus, to Caesarea. He commenced the examination anew, but when the apostle, as a Koman citizen, appealed to Caesar, he sent him to Rome. This was about 62 A. D. On the voyage thither, Paul, together with the Roman soldiers who accompanied him, suf- fered shipwreck, and they were compelled to pass the winter on the island of Malta. Paul did not, therefore, arrive at Rome before the commencment of the following year, and was there again kept as a prisoner for two years, i. e., till 65 A. D., before his case was decided. Still his confinement at Rome was not so strict as that at Caasarea. He was permitted to hire a dwelling in the city, to go about, speak, and write as he pleased ; only, he was always accompanied by a soldier. Luke alone details all these events in the last chapters of the Acts, with very great minuteness., From Paul's Epistles we learn nothing respecting this period ; for Paul seems not to have written at all from Caasarea. Probably the strict durance in which he was held did not permit any communication by writing. In the providence of God, this long confinement may have served to ac- quaint Paul with himself, with the depths of his own interior being. For, the manner of life which Paul led and was obliged to lead, the perpetual bustle of travel, his constant efforts in regard to others, might have injured him by dissipation of his thoughts, and might, so to speak, have exhausted the fulness of his spirit, had he not possessed some quiet seasons in which, while his attention was turned wholly upon himself, he might be spiritually replenished and invigorated for future seasons of intense outward exertion. But from the other of the two places where Paul was compelled to remain a prisoner for a long period, i. e., Rome, he certainly wrote several Epistles, viz., the Epistles to the Ephesians, Philip- pians, Colossians, and Philemon. Still, although in these Epistles mention is made of some historical particulars, he supposes the oc- currences in regard to himself to be generally known among the Christians of the churches in Macedonia and Asia Minor, and there- fore does not enter into details respecting them. Unfortunately Luke closed his book of Acts at the point when Paul had lived two years as a prisoner at Rome ; and therefore, in further designating the historical connection of Paul's Epistles, we are not able to state the circumstances of time and place with so much precision and cer- tainty as hitherto. This circumstance, likewise, explains how, in such a state of things, the remaining Epistles of Paul afford more room to doubt of their genuineness than was the case in regard to those which, we see, well and easily fall into the history of Paul as THE PAULINE EPISTLES. related in the Acts. We shall therefore devote separate considera- tion to these Epistles. CHAPTER V. CONTINUATION. OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES COMPOSED DURING AND AFTEE PAUL'S IMPRISONMENT AT ROME. OF the Epistles composed by Paul during his imprisonment at Rome, the Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians and Philemon, can be easily shown with sufficient certainty to be genuine writings of the apostle. First, as to the Epistle to the Philippians, Paul clearly represents himself therein, not only as a prisoner, but also as a prisoner at Rome ; for he speaks of the barracks occupied by the imperial guards (the Praetorium : Luther translates the word by JRicht-haus, or hall of justice, Phil. i. 13), into which the fame of his imprisonment had extended itself. Probably Paul had won over to the gospel the soldiers set to guard him, to whom he was wont to preach, and, through these, others in the camp may have been con- verted. Even the imperial palace itself is mentioned by Paul (Phil. iv. 22), as having been already penetrated by the seeds of the word of God. These clear allusions leave not the slightest doubt that the Epistle was written from Rome. Nor can any doubt re- main as to the question, whether it was really written to the inhab- itants of the Macedonian city Pliilippi. For, according to Acts xvi. 12 seq. the apostle's labours in this city had been particularly blessed. The Lord at once opened the heart of Lydia, so that she believed the preaching of Paul. An unfortunate occurrence respect- ing a damsel possessed with a spirit of divination, which the apostle expelled, constrained him to leave the city. The church of Philippi, however, always preserved a particular attachment to the Apostle Paul, and his acknowledgement of this fact runs through the whole of his letter to them. The apostle calls them his brethren dearly beloved and longed for, his joy and crown (Phil. iv. 1), and thanks the Philippian Christians that they so faithfully had respect to his bodily necessities (Phil. iv. 15, 16). These characteristics are de- cisive in favour of the genuineness of the Epistles, which, more- over, has not been contested either in ancient or modern times. The case is the same in regard to the Epistle to the Colossians. This church was not founded by Paul in person ; as he himself in- dicates in Col. ii. 1. He had indeed been in Phrygia, but had not visited the city of Colosse on his journey through this province of Asia Minor. Paul nevertheless wrote to them, as also to the THE PAULINE EPISTLES. Komans, in part from universal Christian love, which called upon him to acknowledge the members of every church of Christ as brethren, and in part from the special reason, that the Gospel had been carried to Colosse by disciples of his, particularly Epaphras. The imme- diate occasion of his Epistle, however, was, that heretics threatened to draw away the church from the true faith. These individuals were not of the ordinary Judaizing class ; along with much that was Jewish, they had some Gnostic characteristics. Now Phrygia is the precise spot where, from the earliest times downward, we find a prevalent tendency to fantastic apprehension of religion. Thus the circumstance that, according to Paul's representation, men of this stamp had gained influence in Colosse, suits perfectly well with what we know of that city. Nor is it otherwise than very natural, that few particular allusions occur in the Epistle, as he was not personally known to the church. He however mentions his imprison- ment, and sends salutations also from some persons of their acquaint- ance who were in his vicinity, among others from Aristarchus (Col. iv. 10), who, as we learn from the Acts, had come to Home with Paul and Luke (xxvii. 2). The latter companion of Paul likewise salutes the believers in Phrygia (iv. 14). Of individuals themselves resident in Colosse, he saluted especially Archippus (iv. 17), who occupied some ministry in the church. Concerning this man, as also concerning Onesimus, whom Paul mentions (Col. iv. 9), we gain more particular information from the Epistle to Philemon. In this Epistle to the Colossians, likewise, every thing harmonises so ex- actly with Paul's circumstances in general, and his relation to the church which he addressed in particular, that no one has ever been led to question its genuineness, either in ancient or modern days. With the same entire unanimity has the genuineness of Paul's Epistle to Philemon likewise been always admitted. This delight- ful little Epistle so clearly exhibits all the characteristics of the great apostle, and is so utterly free from every thing which would make it probable that any person could have a motive in forging it, that no one would ever entertain the idea of denying that Paul was its author. Philemon, to whom the Epistle is addressed, probably lived in Colosse, for that Archippus, who held an office in the church at Colosse, appears here as his son, and Appia as his wife (Phil. v. 2). Probably Philemon was^ 11 opulent man ; for he had so spacious a house, that it accommoo. :Md the assemblies oi believers. Paul wrote this Epistle, likewise, in confinement (v. 13), and sends salutations from all those who, according to the Acts and the Epistle to the Colossians, were in his vicinity (v. 23, 24). Onesimus, who had fled from the relation of bondage which he had sustained towards Philemon in Colosse, Paul sends back to his mas- ter, whom he informs that his slave had been led by him to obey THE PAULINE EPISTLES. the Gospel, so that Philemon is to receive back again as a brother him whom he had lost as a slave. The whole of this small Epistle comprises indeed no important doctrinal contents ; but it is an ex- hibition of interior, deep feeling, and delicate regard to circum- stances on the part of the apostle, and as such has always been very dear and valuable to the church. In regard to the Epistle to the Ephesians, however, the case is totally different from what it is in regard to the three other Epistles sent from Kome. There are so many remarkable circumstances in relation to this Epistle, that we can easily comprehend how its genuineness has been often brought in question. Still, all the doubts which may have been excited are completely removed on a closer examination, so that it can by no means be denied that the Epistle was written by the apostle, even if its actual destination to Ephesus cannot be established. If it be considered that Paul, as we saw above in the historical account of the apostle's life, was twice in Ephesus, and that once he even resided there for about three years, it must certainly ap- pear very strange that, in an Epistle to this church, of the elders of which Paul had taken leave in so pathetic a manner (Acts xx. 17), there should be found no salutations. In writing to the Romans, Paul, though he had never been at Kome, sent salutations to so many persons that their names fill an entire chapter, while in this Epistle not a single person is greeted. Moreover, there are no per- sonal and confidential allusions in any part of the Epistle. Paul appears only in the general relation of a Christian teacher and a friend to his readers. There is certainly something extremely strange in this character of the Epistle, particularly, moreover, as that which we should especially expect to find in the Epistle, viz., allusion to heretics, against which Paul had so expressly warned the Ephesian elders, is entirely wanting (Acts xx. 29 seq.) The difficulties are increased when we know what was the case originally concerning the address to the readers of the Epistle (Eph. i. 1). Instead of " Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus," as it stands in most copies, Marcion, in his MS., read : " to the saints at Laodicea" In other MSS. there was no name at all, neither Ephesus, nor Lao- dicea ; and in these tf inscription of the Epistle ran thus : " Paul, an apostle of Jesuif e ^&rfat, by the will of God, to the saints which dwell at ." Instead of the name was a vacant space, which, however, was often neglected by the copyists, who thus perplexed the matter still further. In addition to all this, if the Epistle to the Ephesians be com- pared with that to the Colossians, we shall find the same funda- mental thought, and often even the same train of ideas, only the THE PAULINE EPISTLES. first is more minute and expanded, while in the Epistle to the Colossians the thoughts are more concisely and briefly presented. On account of this relative character it has been declared that the Epistle to the Ephesians is probably only an enlargement of the Epistle to the Colossians, made with a special design by some other hand. But though for a moment such a supposition might not ap- pear altogether unfounded, its plausibility is completely dissipated when the peculiar character of the Epistle is made apparent by a right and thorough notion of its origin. The Epistle to the Ephe- sians is undoubtedly what is termed a circular letter, directed not to a single church but to many at once. In such a letter, therefore, there could be no personal allusions, because what might interest one circle of readers might be unintelligible to another. In this Epistle, therefore, Paul adheres exclusively to generalities, and touches only on such topics as would be of interest to all members of the churches for whom the Epistle was intended. Now, on the supposition that Ephesus and Laodicea were of the number of those churches for which the Epistle was intended, nothing is more easy -of explanation than the fact, that the name of the former was in the inscription of some MBS., and the name of the latter in that of others. The messenger who carried the apostolic letter may have taken several copies with him, in which the space for the name of the place was not filled out, and remained thus until they were de- livered, when the name of the church which received any particular one was added to it. The diffusion of the Epistle abroad was mainly from the capital city of Ephesus ; and hence the name Ephesus got into the inscription of most of the MSS. Marcion, however, came into possession of a transcript from the copy which was delivered at Laodicea, and for this reason he read Laodicea instead of Ephesus in the inscription. In some copies there may have been a total neglect to fill up the spaces left vacant for the names ; and in this way some MSS. got into circulation in which no city was designated. It is seen how satisfactorily and completely, on this single sup- position, that the Epistle to the Ephesians was a circular letter, our difficulties .disappear at once. It is true the striking resemblance of the Epistle to that to the Colossians still remains ; and in recent times the greatest stress has been laid on this very point. Both Epistles have essentially the same contents, only the Epistle to the Ephesians is more full and minute, as has been already re- marked. But let it be considered that the two Epistles were writ- ten not only about the same time, but under entirely similar cir- cumstances. Is it then to be wondered at, that there is a striking similarity in contents and arrangement ? What purpose could there have been in forging or counterfeiting an Epistle, in which the fraudulent author said the same things which were contained in a THE PAULINE EPISTLES. genuine Epistle of the man to whom he wished that his production should be ascribed ? It is, therefore, clear that there is nothing in this resemblance of the Epistle to the Ephesians to that to the Colossians, which can justify us in inferring the spuriousness of either. For, whether we suppose that the longest (that to the Ephesians) was written first, and that Paul afterwards repeated the same thoughts in the shortest (that to the Colossians) ; or, vice versa, that he wrote the shortest first, and afterwards felt himself called upon to state the same ideas more at length in the other, there is not the least harm done by their similarity to each other, particularly as the Epistle to the Ephesians contains many ideas wholly peculiar to the Apostle Paul, which are wanting in the Epistle to the Colossians, and this too in his own phraseology and style. It is to be observed, further, that Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians mentions a letter to the church at Laodicea, and charges the former to communicate their Epistle to the believers in Lao- dicea, and in return to request the Epistle addressed to them. Now, because, as we have seen, Marcion regarded the Epistle to the Ephesians as having been directed to the Laodiceans, it has been supposed that our Epistle to the Ephesians was the one meant by Paul. But, plausible as this may appear at first sight, it is still im- probable, on a closer examination, that it is correct ; for, first, the great similarity between the two Epistles makes against it, as this must evidently have rendered their mutual transfer of less conse- quence. Then, too, it is not common to direct special salutations to be given to those to whom we write ourselves at the same time, which is done by Paul in relation to the Laodiceans in his letter to the Colossians (passim). Moreover, our Epistle to the Ephe- sians, as a circular letter, could not well be designated by the name, Epistle to the Laodiceans. Thus, it is far more probable that this letter was a separate one, which has been lost to us. As early as the time of Jerome, there existed a separate Epistle to the Laodiceans, different from that to the Ephesians. But the father just mentioned remarks, that all without exception reject it. It is probable, therefore, that, on account of the passage, Col. iv. 15, 16, some one had forged an Epistle to the Laodiceans, just as was the case, as we have before stated, with the first Epistle to the Corinthians which was lost. There remain, therefore, only the three Epistles of the apostle, which are usually comprehended under the title of Pastoral Letters, viz., the two to Timothy, and that to Titus. They are all three oc- cupied with a consideration of the duties of a pastor of the church of Christ, and on account of this common purport are classed under the general designation which we have mentioned. In a close inves- THE PAULINE EPISTLES. tigation of the contents and the historical allusions of these Epistles there arise very many difficulties, on which account they have be- come subject to doubt beyond all the other Pauline Epistles. Ancient tradition is certainly wholly in favour of their genuineness, as in relation to the Epistle to the Ephesians ; for the circumstance, that Marcion did not have them in his canon, is not regarded as im- portant, even by opponents of the Epistles, who are at all impar- tial. It was undoubtedly only through accident that these Epistles remained unknown to him, and to his native city, Sinope, upon the Black Sea ; for had he possessed historical reasons against its re- ception, they could not have been so completely lost at a later period. We may here see, in fact, a very important evidence in behalf of the genuineness of these Epistles ; for Timothy lived when Paul wrote to him, not in a distant, unknown place, but in Ephesus, one of the chief cities frequented by the Christians of the ancient church. The scene of the labours of Titus was the isle of Crete, which also, on account of its vicinity to Corinth, and to other im- portant churches, maintained lively intercourse with the churches generally. Now, how Epistles directed to persons labouring in places of so much note, and holding so high a rank, as being assist- ants of the apostle, could gain the reputation of being genuine throughout the whole ancient church, when they were really forged in the name of the apostle, is indeed difficult of comprehension, as so many must have been able to expose the deception. Supposing, therefore, that on a close investigation of the contents of the Epistle, there should appear much that is strange, it must be considered as losing a great deal of its influence in relation to the question of the genuineness of the Epistles, from the fact that this is so firmly es- tablished by the tradition of the church. Another circumstance to be premised, which is very much in favour of their genuineness, is, that in all the three Epistles there occurs a multitude of personal and particular allusions. Now, it is clear that an impostor, who was palming off his own Epistles as an- other's (for such is the language which we must use concerning the author of these three compositions, if they are not the work of Paul himself, since he expressly names himself as the author, besides in- dicating the fact in a manner not to be mistaken), would avoid as much as possible all special circumstances, because he would be too likely to betray himself in touching upon them, since particulars cannot be very minutely known to a stranger. Moreover, a forgery generally wants that graphic exactness which is exhibited so mani- festly in writings that spring out of actually existing circumstances. Hence every unprejudiced person would, in the outset, think it very unlikely that a writing was forged in which there occurred such spe- cial allusions as we find in 1 Tim. v. 23, where Paul savs to Timo- THE PAULINE EPISTLES. thy, " Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy. stomach's sake and thine often infirmities." Of the same nature, also, is a passage in the second Epistle to Timothy (2 Tim. iv. 13), in which the apostle complains that he had, through forgetfulness, left his cloak, some books, and parchments, with a friend, and desires Timo- thy to take care of them. Plainly, such things are not forged ; for to what end should any one give himself the useless trouble to in- vent such insignificant matters, if they did not actually happen, since they could not do either any harm or any good. In the same Epistle (2 Tim. iv. 20, 21), Paul sends salutations from many indi- viduals, and gives various information respecting persons of their mutual acquaintance. "Erastus abode at Corinth," says Paul, " but Trophimus have I left at Melitus sick ;" and he invites Timo- thy himself to come to him before winter. If any person invented all this, we must at least call him extremely inconsiderate, for he ought not certainly to have mentioned such noted cities, since the Christians who dwelt in them could learn, without any great diffi- culty, whether any one of the name of Trophimus was ever at Mi- letus with the apostle, and was left there by him sick, and whether Erastus abode at Corinth. The same is true of the Epistle to Titus, as one may be convinced by examining Titus iii. 12. Still, let us look at the reasons which are advanced against the genuineness of these Epistles. Certain investigators have thought that there was in all three of them something not only in the phraseology, but in the style altogether, which cannot but be re- garded as unlike Paul. The weakness of such statements, however, may be clearly inferred from the fact that another investigator, of no less acuteness, supposes the second Epistle to Timothy and the one to Titus to be really genuine Epistles of Paul, while the first to Timothy is spurious, and imitated from the other two. This second investigator, therefore, founds his argument for the spuriousness of the first of the three Epistles on the genuineness of the two others, thus overthrowing, by his own reasoning, the position of the former investigators in regard to the necessity of supposing them all spuri- ous. The historical difficulties, however, which are discerned on close examination of the Epistles, are of more consequence. It is from these, properly, that all attacks upon these pastoral letters have originated, and in these they find their excuse, only writers ought not to have so manifestly confounded difficulties with positive arguments against the genuineness of a writing. .As to the First Epistle to Timothy, the principal difficulty is, to point out a period in Paul's life exactly coinciding with the state- ment which the apostle makes at the outset (i. 3). He says that when he went to Macedonia he left Timothy at Ephesus, to protect the true faith and thwart heretics in that city. Now we know, in- THE PAULINE EPISTLES. IXXIX deed, that when Demetrius the silver-smith drove Paul from Ephe- BUS, he went to Macedonia ; but it is impossible that he should then have left Timothy behind at Ephesus, since he sent him before him- self to Macedonia with Erastus. Thus, when Paul wrote his Second Epistle to the Corinthians from Macedonia, Timothy was with him. (Coinp. Acts xix. 22, 2 Cor. i. 1). Moreover, we are informed of no other journey of Paul from Ephesus to Macedonia, when he left Timothy behind in the city to watch over the church-; and hence arises a difficulty in assigning this Epistle its proper place in Paul's life. There are similar circumstances respecting the Second Epistle. This Epistle, too, is directed to Timothy at Ephesus. Paul clearly writes from Home. (Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 16, 17, with 2 Tim. i. 16, 18, iv. 19). He was in bonds (i. 16), and was expecting a new ex- amination of his cause. Now, he invites Timothy to come to him, and requests him to make haste and come before winter (iv. 13, 21). But, according to Col. i. 1, Philemon ver. 1, and Phil. i. 1, Timothy, at the time of Paul's imprisonment at Rome, as related by Luke in the Acts, was in Paul's company ; and hence it seems impossible that Paul could have written to him at Ephesus. It is true Paul's imprisonment at Rome lasted two years, and it might be supposed that Timothy was for some time with him, and for some time away during his imprisonment ; but there are other circumstances which make it very improbable that the Second Epistle to Timothy was written during the same imprisonment in which the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians were composed. According to 2 Tim. iv. 13, Paul had left at Troas, a cloak, books, and parch- ments, which Timothy was to bring with him when he came to Paul (iv. 21). Now, before Paul's imprisonment at Rome, which lasted two years, he was also two years in Ceesarea. We should, therefore, be compelled to suppose that he had left these things behind at Troas, four years before. But certainly it is probable that Paul would have made some other disposition of them in the mean time, if they were of any consequence to him. But even if we may suppose that Paul would send for clothing and books which had laid at Troas for years, it is out of the question that he should say in relation to a journey made four years before : " Erastus abode at Corinth, but Trophimus, have I left at Miletus sick/' (2 Tim. iv. 20). Miletus was in the vicinity of Ephesus, at a distance from Rome where Paul was writing. Now, if Paul had not been in Miletus for four years, it is wholly impossible that he should have mentioned the illness of one whom he had left behind at Miletus so long a time before, be- cause his case must long since have been decided. Similar diffi- culties present themselves, likewise, on a close examination of the Epistle to Titus, For Paul writes in this Epistle (i. 4, 5, iii. 12), 1XXX THE PAULINE EPISTLES. that he himself had been in the Island of Crete, and had left Titus there behind him for the same purpose which caused him to leave Timothy in Ephesus ; and states that he intended to spend the winter in Nicopolis, whither he directs Titus to come and meet him. Now, it is true, Paul, according to the Acts (xxvii. 8), was once in Crete, but it was as a prisoner, and on a voyage. In these circum- stances, therefore, he could not accomplish much ; nor could he leave Titus behind, as on his voyage Titus was nowhere in his neighbourhood. Nothing is told us in any part of the New Testa- ment history as to Paul's residence in Nicopolis, and it is the more difficult to come to any assurance respecting it from the fact, that there were so many cities of that name. Thus, this Epistle, like- wise, cannot be assigned to its place in Paul's history, and therefore it is perfectly true, that there are difficulties incident to an exami- nation of these pastoral letters ; but, as we have before observed, difficulties are not equivalent to positive arguments against their genuineness. It is true they would be, were we so exactly and minutely acquainted with the history of the Apostle Paul, that such a difficulty in assigning an epistle its place among the circum- stances of his life would be the same as an impossibility. If, for ex- ample, we knew with certainty that the Apostle Paul never resided in any city by the name of Nicopolis, we should be obliged to con- sider the Epistle to Titus, which purports to have been written from some place called Nicopolis, as spurious and forged. But this is so far from being the case, that in those Epistles of Paul which are admitted to be genuine, very many occurrences are noticed, of which we have no further information. A remarkable instance of this kind is the well-known passage, 2 Cor. xi. 23 seq., in which Paul states, that he had five times received of the Jews forty stripes save one, thrice being beaten with rods, once stoned, thrice suffered shipwreck, etc., etc. Of very few of these sufferings of Paul do we know the particulars. How much, therefore, of what took place in his life, may remain unknown to us. It is to be re- membered, too, that the brief general statements given by Luke in the Acts extend over long periods in the apostle's life. At Corinth, Ephesus, Caesarea, and Rome, Paul abode for years. Now, as slight journeys abroad are, it is well known, commonly comprehended by historians in a residence at any particular place for a long period, may not this have been frequently the case in Luke's history ? Many have thought this probable, and have therefore supposed short journeys from this or that place, and in this way have attempted to find some situation in Paul's life, which should appear suitable for the composition of one or another of the pastoral letters. We will not trouble our readers, however, with an enumeration of these dif- ferent views, which, nevertheless, show that it is not impossible to THE PAULINE EPISTLES. designate some situation in which Paul might have written these Epistles. We choose rather to confine ourselves to the development of an important supposition by which a suitable period of time is obtained for all the three Epistles together, and their relation to each other is determined. This supposition is, that Paul was set at liberty from the first imprisonment at Kome related by Luke (which had lasted two years when Luke finished his book of Acts), performed important missionary tours afterward, and was at last im- prisoned a second time at Home, and at this time died there a mar- tyr's death. It is very evident that if we can in this way gain space of time for another journey to Asia and Crete, it will be easy to imagine the situations which gave rise to the first Epistle to Timo- thy and that to Titus. The second Epistle to Timothy must then have been written in Rome itself during the second imprisonment, and any remarkable expressions which it contains are then perfectly intelligible, if it be supposed that Paul wrote the Epistle after his arrival at Eome from Asia Minor. The only question is, whether this supposition, that Paul was a second time imprisoned at Rome, is a mere hypothesis, or can be sustained by any historical evidence. Were it a mere conjecture, it must be admitted, it would be of little importance. There are not wanting, however, some historical facts of such a nature as to confirm the supposition. First, we find it current among the Fathers of the fourth century. It is true, they do not expressly present historical grounds for their opinion ; they seem rather to liave inferred a second imprisonment at Rome from the second Epis- tle to Timothy. But, that they at once assumed a second imprison- ment, when they might have hit upon other modes of explanation, seems to indicate a tradition, however obscure, in regard to the fact of its having occurred. Moreover, we are told by a very ancient writer of the Roman church, the apostolic Father Clemens Romanus, that Paul went to the farthest west. This must mean Spain. In the Epistle to the Romans (chap, xv.) Paul expresses a strong de- sire to visit that country. This he cannot have done before his first imprisonment ; it is not at all improbable, therefore, that he may afterwards have journeyed to this country, the most western region of the then known world. Whatever may be thought of this supposition, so much is clear the difficulties with which the attentive reader meets with in the Epistles, are no arguments against their genuineness. Indeed every thing essential is in their favour. The internal similarity of the Epistles, however, makes it probable that they were composed about the same time, and the idea that they were written during the second imprisonment, of which we have spoken, accords very well with this supposition. VOL. I. 6 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. CHAPTER VI. OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF the investigations of learned men respecting the genuineness of the writings of the New Testament, we have hitherto been able to give a very favourable account ; but the case seems now to be differ- ent, in considering the investigations respecting the Epistle to the He- brews. For, he who has been accustomed to reckon this epistle among those of Pauline origin (the Lutheran version, such as it now is, expressly attributing it to this apostle, although Luther himself, as will be shown presently, held a different opinion), may be sur- prised at hearing that the latest,, extremely thorough and generally impartial, investigations respecting this important Epistle, deter- mine that Paul was not its author. 1 We have before remarked, that the genuineness of the Epistle to the Hebrews is not at all in question : the only inquiry is, who was its author. For he has nei- ther named nor designated himself throughout the Epistle. Thus, even though Paul should not be considered the author, it does not follow that the Epistle is a forged, spurious one. Now, that the case of this Epistle must be peculiar, is clear from the fact, that it was not admitted into the midst of the other Pauline Epistles. In the Greek Testament it does indeed come directly after the Epistle to Philemon, and thus by the side of the collection of Paul's Epistles (though Luther has placed it after the Epistles of Peter and John) ; but it is clear that this large and im- portant Epistle would have been placed among the other large Epistles of the same apostle to whole churches, perhaps after the Epistles to the Corinthians, had it been originally regarded as a pro- duction of the apostle to the Gentiles. 4 Consequently, its position after the Epistle of Philemon, the smallest and most inconsiderable of Paul's private letters, shows plainly, that it was not generally reckoned as one of the Pauline Epistles, until after the collection of them was completed. However, all this is, of course, of an inciden- tal nature ; there are far more important reasons, which make it im- probable that Paul was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and to the consideration of these we will now direct our attention. 1 But see Professor Stuart's discussion of this point in his masterly Commentary upon the Epistle. See also an able discussion of it in a .work published at London in 1830, entitled " Biblical Notes and Dissertations, &c.," written by Joseph John Gurney, an Englishman, member of the Society of Friends. Mr. Gurney's dissertation was repub- lished in the Biblical Repository for July 1832 (Vol. II. p. 409). TR. a According to Epiphanius, a church-father of the fourth century, some MSS. placed the Epistlo of the Hebrews 'before the Epistles to Timothy ; probably only because it seemed to some copyists improper that an Epistle to a whole church should stand after Epistles to private individuals. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBKEWS. The form of the Epistle is, it is seen, entirely different from that of Paul's letters. He opens each of his Epistles, not only with his name and the title of his sacred office, but also with an apostolic salutation ; " Grace be with you and peace from God our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ." Nothing of this kind is to be seen at the commencement of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It begins like a treatise (which indeed many have been inclined to suppose it to be), without any reference to its readers : " God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, &c." The conclusion bears more resemblance to Paul's Epistles ; for it contains a salutation, such as those of the apostle, and announces a visit to the readers of the Epistle on the part of the author in company with Timothy. The writer sends a salutation on the part of the brethren from Italy ; from whence it has been erroneously inferred that the Epistle was written in Italy, whereas the phraseology indicates exactly the contrary. 1 For the author would not have employed such an expression unless he was writing out of Italy in a place whither brethren had arrived from that coun- try. The Epistle contains no particular salutations from one indi- vidual to another ; but this is not strange, as it is addressed to so many. For the Hebrews, to whom the Epistle was written, were the Jewish Christians who lived in Palestine. Their benefit was in- tended by the entire contents of this profound Epistle. It analyzes thoroughly the relation of the Old Testament to the New. Nevertheless, it may be said, no great stress ought to be laid upon the external form of the Epistle ; Paul might for once have deviated from his usual custom. But the historical evidence is very decisive in regard to this Epistle. For, in the western church, and particularly the Roman, the Epistle to the Hebrews was not at all acknowledged as Paul's production until some time in the fourth century. It was through Augustine's means, who died so late as 430 A. D., that it first became common to ascribe it to Paul ; and even this Father of the church sometimes speaks doubtfully of the Epistle, as do other Fathers after his time. Plainly this is very re- markable. For, if it be considered how well-known Paul was, and how deeply loved at Rome, and that he was twice imprisoned there for years, it will be evident that it must have been known in that city whether Paul was its author or not. Thus the testimony of this Roman church is of the highest importance in the question 1 The original Greek reads, ol and T% 'IraAtaf, which is translated in our English version "they of Italy." Olshausen considers it necessary to translate d-no/rom, making the whole expression to mean, those who had come from Italy to some place where Paul was writing. Consultation of a good Greek lexicon will cause any one to doubt whether there is any such necessity as Olshausen supposes. See, for example, in Passow, under the word dxo, such expressions as, alfia and Tpuuv, the blood of the Trojans, ol uwd HXdruvoc, they of Plato's party, &c. Ta. 1XXX1V THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. under examination. Now, it is observable, that Clement of Rome, an immediate disciple of Paul, makes very ample use of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and even introduces long passages of it into his own Epistle to the Corinthians. This is indeed a very decisive prool of the high antiquity of the Epistle ; but Clement does not men- tion the author of the writing from which he quoted, and therefore the use he has made of it has no further influence in regard to the question, who was its author. Still, he must certainly have liked the Epistle, and esteemed it very highly ; otherwise he would not have been induced to embellish his own Epistle with large passages from it, which are interwoven with his train of thought, as though they were original. That in the West there was general uncertainty in regard to the author of the Epistle, is shown by the circumstance, that an African Father of the church, Tertullian, names Barnabas as its author. Others, especially some orientals, ascribe it to Luke, and some to the before-mentioned Clement, though unfortunately without good reason. There was no uniform tradition in the West in regard to its authorship ; it was, from conjecture alone, ascribed to various in- dividuals. The case was totally different with the Greek church in the East. The predominant opinion with this was that Paul was the author. It was the celebrated Fathers of the Alexandrian church especially, together with the Syrians, who made great use of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and referred it to the Apostle Paul. The old Syriac ver- sion contains it in its canon. This circumstance is not to be over- looked, particularly as the Epistle is directed to the Christians in Palestine, from whom of course it fcight very easily come into the hands of the neighbouring Syrians and Egyptians. Historical tes- timony, however, in favour of any Epistle, must be sought for mainly in the place where it was composed, and that to which it was ad- dressed. One of these furnishes evidence against the Pauline origin of the Epistle, and the other in its favour ; a circumstance which, as we shall see hereafter, is of no slight consequence in an inquiry respecting the canonical authority of the Epistle. Although the Greek, and especially the Alexandrian, Fathers were favourably disposed towards the Epistle to the Hebrews, the learned among them admitted the great difference between it and the other Epistles of Paul They explained this difference by sup- posing that Paul wrote the Epistle in Hebrew, and Luke translated it into Greek. The Evangelist was fixed upon as the translator, because, as was thought, a resemblance was discovered between his style and that of the Epistle. The supposition, however, is not at all probable ; for the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews is so pecu- liarly Greek, that it cannot have been translated from the Hebrew. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 1XXXV We may see, merely from the conjecture thus presented, that inquir- ing minds, in perusing the Epistle, came to doubt whether it was really Pauline in its character, even where it was commonly consid- ered as a Pauline production. Hence it was that our Luther, when he studied the Scriptures in a critical manner, renewed the doubts respecting the Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, after it had been regarded throughout the middle ages as the Apostle Paul's production. He writes on this point as follows : "As yet, we have mentioned only the principal, indubitably genuine books of the New Testament. The four following books, however, 1 have in times past held a dif- ferent rank. And first, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not St. Paul's, nor any apostle's, is proved by the tenor of v. 3 chap. ii. : ' How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which at first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him/ It is clear that he speaks of the apostles as though he were a disciple, to whom this salvation had come frorn^ the apostles, perhaps long after." (See Walch's Ed. Luther's Works, Th. xiv. p. 146.) The passage to which Luther refers is in- deed remarkable, and has been employed by scholars of a more recent day to prove that Paul cannot have been the author of the Epistle. For we know that he always maintained strongly (partic- ularly in the ouset to the Epistle to the Galatians), in opposition to his Jewish adversaries, who presumed to dispute his apostolic au- thority, that he was not a disciple of the apostles, but had received every thing from the immediate revelation of God. How then is it conceivable, that in Heb. ii. 3, he should have represented himself as a disciple of the apostles ; and this in an Epistle to Jewish Christians, before whom it was specially important for him to appear as a real apostle of our Lord ? This circumstance, moreover, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians, de- prives of all probability that interpretation of the passage according to which Paul speaks merely out of courtesy, as though he himself was a disciple of the apostles, which in reality was the case only with his readers. For then Paul would have expressed himself in a manner very liable to be misapprehended ; and that this should have happened when his relation to the Jewish Christians was so peculiar, is extremely improbable. Luther, with his free, bold dispo- sition, which did indeed sometimes carry him beyond the limits of truth in his critical investigations, did not content himself with merely disputing the Pauline origin of the Epistle; he even ven- tured to institute conjectures respecting its author. He regarded the celebrated Apollos as its author; the same of whom mention is 1 He means, besides the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, and the Revelation of John. 1XXXV1 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. made in the Acts. In truth, this supposition possesses extreme pro- bability, and has therefore, by all the hypotheses respecting the author of the Epistle, recommended itself most even to recent in- vestigators. The book of Acts describes this man as having pre- cisely that character of mind which the author of this Epistle must have had, to judge from its contents. He is stated (Acts xviii. 24) to have been by birth an Alexandrian, an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures. Now, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews shows himself to have been thoroughly acquainted with the Old Testament, and eloquently maintains the deep and sublime ideas which it presents. According to the same passage, he constantly overcame the Jews in conversation with them, and proved publicly, by means of the Scriptures, that Jesus was the Christ. Undoubtedly, in these disputes he made use of just such forcible expositions of the Old Testament, as those of which we find so many in the Epis- tle to the Hebrews, and which were very commonly employed by the Alexandrians in particular. The idea that Titus, or Luke, or Clement, might have been the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is untenable, for this reason, if there were no other, that these men were Gentiles by birth, and the author declares himself a native JeW! There would be more reason for fixing upon Silas or Silvanus, who were, as we know, Paul's companions, or, likewise, upon Bar- nabas. For the last we have even one historical evidence, as we have already remarked. A Father of the church, Tertullian, ex- pressly ascribes the Epistle to Barnabas. But, as we have an Epis- tle written by this assistant of the apostles, we are able to see from it with perfect certainty that he cannot be author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. His whole manner of writing and thinking is dif- ferent from the course of ideas in this production. It is true there is nothing so decisive against Silas ; but, too, there is nothing definite in Ms favour. His peculiar character of mind is nowhere described, as the character of Apollos is in the Acts of the Apostles. The idea, therefore, that Silas was the author of the Epistle, is a wholly unsupported conjecture. It is true, too, it is merely a con- jecture, that Apollos wrote it ; but it is a conjecture more probable than could be required or wished in respect to opinions of any other nature than those in question. But, though we could assign the name of the author, it would be of little consequence in our investigation. It is sufficient that we cannot suppose Paul to have been the author. Here, however, arises the very difficult question, what we are to think of the canonical authority of the Epistle, if its author was not an apostle? for the primitive church would not receive the wri- tings of any but these into the collection of sacred books; and those who rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, e. g., the Koman church, THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. did it for the very reason, that they could not admit Paul to have been its author. Must we then reject the Epistle to the Hebrews, or at hast esteem it leas highly than the other writings of the New Tes- tament, because it ivas not written by Paul ? This inquiry merits the more careful consideration, because the contents of the Epis- tle are of a very profound and important nature to the church generally, and the evangelical church in particular. For the sacred doctrine of the high-priesthood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, is, in this very Epistle to the Hebrews, treated of more at length, and more thoroughly, than in any other book of the New Testament. Hence, the circumstance that the Epistle is not from the pen of the Apostle Paul might give rise to inferences against the validity of the doctrine which this Epistle in particular inculcates. It must certainly be admitted that the ruling idea in the for- mation of the canon was to admit only apostolic productions. For although Mark and Luke, whose writings were acknowledged by the whole church, were not apostles, they were in intimate connection with Peter and Paul, and their works were therefore regarded as properly the productions of those apostles. And this principle was perfectly correct. Though it must be allowed that the Holy Spirit might exert its power on others besides the apostles, and might en- able them to compose excellent productions, still it was wise in the ancient church to restrict the canon of the Holy Scriptures, which was to serve as the norm or rule of faith and practice, for the complete development of the kingdom of God, exclusively to apostolic writings. For the apostles, as most immediately connected with our Saviour, had received into their souls in the greatest abundance and purity the Spirit of truth which flowed forth from him. The more distant the relation which individuals sustained to our Lord, the feebler the influence of the Spirit from above upon them, and the more easily might their acts be affected by other influences. It was therefore necessary that the church should admit as the norm of faith, only such writings as sprang from the most lively and purest operation of the Holy Spirit, as it was manifested in the apostles. Otherwise there would have been ground for fear lest errors, perhaps indeed of a slight character, might have crept in, and then been continued from generation to generation in the Holy Scriptures, and propa- gated as of sacred authority. It was such thoughts undoubtedly which induced some learned men to distinguish the Epistle to the Hebrews and certain other books of the New Testament, which were not adopted with perfect unanimity by the primitive church, from those which were properly canonical and universally acknowledged, denominating the former deutero-canonical. They probably re- garded it as possible that some error had crept into those books, notwithstanding the excellence of their contents generally ; and in i THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. order to obviate the influence of such errors they were desirous of introducing an external separation of these writings from those which were decidedly apostolical. But, with regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews, we must say, that this separation appears totally unfounded. Probable as it certainly is, that Paul did not compose the Epistle, it is still certain that its author wrote it under the in- fluence of Paul, and an influence indeed which exhibits itself still more definitely than that of the same apostle over the writings of Luke, or of Peter over the Gospel of Mark. This position is sus- tained by history, as well as by the contents of the Epistle, in the most decisive manner. On the score of history, in the first place, we cannot, except on the supposition that Paul had an essential share in the composition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, explain the remarkable circumstance that the entire oriental church attributed it to the apostle. This view continued to prevail in the East, even after it was very well known that the western churches, particularly that of Borne, held a different opinion. The tradition, that Paul was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, cannot have rested on mere conjecture, since there was in fact much in the Epistle itself which constrained learned men, who in the main shared the prevalent opinion respect- ing the author of the Epistle, to resort to expedients for the pur- pose of upholding the general idea that Paul wrote the Epistle, and at the same time of solving the difficulties which this supposition involved. Such an expedient, for example, was the idea, of which we have before spoken, that Paul might have written the Epistle in Hebrew, so that we have only a translation of it. Let it be consid- ered, too, that this opinion of the Pauline origin of the Epistle pre- vailed in the very countries to which its original readers belonged ; and then no one will doubt that the only mode of explaining it is, to suppose Paul to have cooperated in the composition of the Epistle, and the first readers of it to have been aware of the fact, and on this account to have referred the Epistle to Paul himself. To this is to be added, the character of the Epistle itself. For, although the ancient observation, that the style of the Epistle is not Pauline, is perfectly well founded, still the tenor of the ideas bears a resemblance, which is not to be mistaken, to the writings of the great apostle of the Gentiles. If we merely keep in mind, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was addressed to Jewish Christians, while the other Pauline Epistles were all of them 1 written to churches the majority of whose members were Gentiles, we shall not discover the least thing in the Epistle which could not have proceeded from the 1 Though the expression is thus general in the original, of course only those Epistles which are directed to churches can be here referred to. The phraseology is exception- able, as some of Paul's letters are not directed to churches at all but to individuals. TK. THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. mind of Paul. Indeed, the main doctrine of the great apostle, that in the death of Jesus an offering of reconciliation was made for the whole world, that with and through it all the ceremonial observances of the Old Testament first obtained their fulfilment as types of what was to come, forms the central point of the Epistle to the Hebrews. If it be further considered, that there was always a certain distance of demeanor between the Apostle Paul and the Jewish Christians, even the best of them, it will be very easy to understand why Paul did not write to them himself ; and still, it must have been his heart's desire to exhibit clearly and in suitable detail his views in regard to the law and its relation to Christianity, which were of a profound nature, and drawn directly from the genuine spirit of the Gospel. What more obvious mode of presenting these to the He- brews, than through the medium of a disciple or faithful friend, who, like Apollos, had a correct apprehension of this relation be- tween the old and new covenant. Supposing this to have been the state of the case, all the circum- stances in regard to the Epistle are explained. In the West it was known that Paul did not write the Epistle. On this account the western church denied that he was the author, without being able, however, to designate any other individual as the author. In the East, on the other hand, it was known that he had an influence in the composition of the Epistle ; and moreover his spirit and his ideas were recognized in it. In the East, therefore, it was much used ; in the West less. In our days we may impartially admit that Paul was not the writer of the Epistle, and still maintain its perfect canonical authority, since the apostle certainly exerted an essential influence over its composition. Thus, though this Epistle belongs to the class of those which have not the unanimous voice of Christian antiquity in favour of their apostolic origin, still it can be shown that this want of agree- ment did not arise from any really suspicious state of things, but was occasioned merely by the peculiar circumstances under which it was composed. CHAPTER VII. OF THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. IT has already been observed, in the first chapter, that in early times the third collection of the writings of the New Testament was termed that of the seven Catholic Epistles. The Greek word Catholic means general, in oppostion to particular. Now, as the church general, in opposition to individual heretical parties, was termed XC THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. Catholic, so the same expression was used to denote those writings which, as universally acknowledged and used, it was designed to dis- tinguish from those which were current only in particular circles. The fact that those writings, which, in addition to the collections called the Gospel and the Apostle, were acknowledged to be genuine and apostolical, were thus united into one separate collection, pro- duced this advantage, that it became thus more difficult ever to con- found them with the many apochryphal writings which were spread abroad in the ancient church. In regard to the origin of this third collection, however, there is an obscurity which can never be entirely dissipated. At the end of the third and commencement of the fourth century, the collection of the seven Catholic Epistles first appears in history ; but who formed it, and where it originated, we do not know. It is impossible, however, that it should have been accidentally formed, as the position of the Epistles is too peculiar for us to sup- pose this. The Epistle of James, which was by no means unani- mously regarded as apostolic, holds the first place in the collection, while the first Epistle of Peter, and the first of John, which have always been regarded as of apostolic authority, come afterward. This very order of the seven Epistles, however, suggests to us, by the way, a probable supposition as to the place where the collection of these Catholic Epistles must have originated. James, the author of the Epistle of James in the canon, nowhere possessed a higher reputation than in Palestine and Syria ; for he was a cousin, i. e. } according to the Hebrew mode of speaking, a brother to our Lord, and at the same time bishop of the church at Jerusalem, and head of the Jewish Christians, as we shall presently show more at length. In the same countries, Peter was held in high estimation, as the one among our Lord's apostles to whom, in particular, was commit- ted the preaching of the G-ospel among the Jews. It is probable, therefore, that the collection of the Catholic Epistles originated in Palestine or Syria, and, out of veneration for the brother of our Lord, and the first bishop of Jerusalem, the author of the collection gave to the Epistle of James the first place, and put those of Peter next. The Epistles of John had less interest for him, on account of his Judaising sentiments, and the Epistle of Jude he placed at the very end. The supposition we have made finds confirmation in the fact, that a father of the Palestinian church, Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, gives us the first certain account of the existence of a col- lection of the seven Catholic Epistles. From the various character of the writings classed together in the collection, we may see clearly its late origin ; for it has already been mentioned above (chap, i.), that the first Epistles of John and that of Peter were originally, as being very ancient and universally- admitted writings, connected with the apostle, so called, i. e. } the THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. XCJ collection of the Pauline Epistles. At a later period, in order to leave these latter by themselves, the two Epistles were taken from the collection of Pauline writings and classed with the five other apostolic Epistles. These last, however, belonged to the number of those which were universally admitted in primitive times, and thus Antilegomena and Homologoumena were introduced into one and the same collection. Still there arose from this procedure one advantage, viz., that the Epistles of the same author were, as was proper, brought together. Luther, with his excellent tact, correctly felt that the collection of the Catholic Epistles unsuitably confound- ed writings which were universally admitted with those which were not, and therefore placed the Epistles of Peter and John immedi- ately after those of Paul, and then at the end, after the Epistle to the Hebrews, the letters of James and Jude, and the Eevelation of John. Still, this did not wholly do away with the impropriety, as the second Epistle of Peter also had been disputed with special zeal. Had he, however, placed this Epistle likewise at the end of the New Testament, along with the other Antilegomena, he must have disturbed too much the old accustomed arrangement. He left it, therefore, and also the two smaller Epistles of John, in connection with the first and main Epistle of the two apostles. It is to be con- sidered, too, that the bearing of the arrangement of the New Testa- ment books upon our critical inquiries is of but secondary considera- tion ; the main point is their internal character, and in reference to this no fault can be found with the original arrangement. In regard, therefore, to the Catholic Epistles generally, little further can be said. Of the Epistles individually, we will consider first the three Epistles of John. As to the first, and main Epistle, it, like the Gospel of John, was always regarded by the ancient church as the production of the Evangelist of that name. In mo- dern times, it is true, doubts have been started in relation to the Gospel. But the principal writer by whom they have been sug- gested has himself since retracted them. Indeed, it was nothing but the very striking similarity in style and ideas between the Gospel and the first Epistle of John, which made it necessary, almost, whether one would or no, to extend*the opposition against the Gos- pel to the Epistle likewise ; for one cannot but suppose them both to have had the same author, from their resemblance in every pecu- liar characteristic. If, therefore, the Epistle were admitted to have been written by the Evangelist John, the Gospel also could not but be attributed to him. But though there may have been a some- what plausible reason for disputing the Gospel, in the idea that the Saviour is represented by John very differently from the exhibition of him in the other Gospels, in regard to the Epistle there is no reason which possesses the slightest plausibility for disputing it. On THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. the supposition that it is spurious, the error of the whole ancient church in referring it, without contradiction, to the Evangelist John, would be completely inexplicable, especially if we carefully compare the history of the Epistle with that of the Evangelist. John, as we have before remarked, lived the longest of all the apostles, viz., till some time in the reign of Domitian, and he resided at Ephesus, in Asia Minor. From no country within the limits of the church, therefore, could we expect to receive more accurate accounts in re- gard to the writings of the beloved disciple of our Lord, than from those of Asia Minor. Now, it is from these very countries that we receive the most ancient testimonies in behalf of the existence and genuineness of the Epistle. Instead of mentioning all, I will name but two of these testimonies, which, however, are so decisive, that we can perfectly well dispense with all the rest. The first is pre- sented by Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia, whom we have already mentioned. This man lived, as has been before said, at the end of the first century and beginning of the second, in the imme- diate vicinity of Ephesus, where the Evangelist John laboured so long and so successfully. He knew not only the Evangelist John, but other immediate disciples of our Lord, who were probably of the number of the seventy, particularly a certain Aristion, and another John, surnamed the Presbyter. Now, is it to be supposed that such a man, who had at his command so many means of arriving at cer- tainty respecting John's writings, could possibly be deceived in re- gard to them ? We must, indeed, renounce all historical testimony, if we deny this witness the capacity to speak in behalf of the gen- uineness of the Epistle of John. The second testimony, however, is of equal importance. One of the apostolic fathers, Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, in Asia Minor, makes use of the first Epistle of John, in the same way as Papias, as though it was admitted to be a genuine production of the Evan- gelist. Now Polycarp lived till after the middle of the second cen- tury, and at the age of eighty-six died a martyr's death in the flames. He had not merely become acquainted with John in the neighbouring city of Ephesus, but had even heard him preach the way of salvation, and was his faithful disciple. The testimony of such a man, therefore, is likewise above all cavil, and is especially confirmed by the fact, that there never has been, in later times, any general opinion against its genuineness, either in the Catholic church, or among the adherents to any particular sect. Against this weight of historical evidence, therefore, nothing can be effected by the mere conjectures of modern times ; and at present all theo- logians are perfectly agreed in the acknowledgment of this precious relic of the beloved disciple of Jesus, his first Epistle. If, in regard to the second and third Epistles of John, such per- THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. XC1U feet agreement of the ancient church in recognizing their genuine- ness cannot be asserted, the reason of this lies entirely in a circum- stance, which also occasioned the tardy insertion of the pastoral letters to Timothy and Titus in the collection of Pauline Epistles, viz., that they are directed to private persons, and moreover are of no very great extent or very important contents, and thus awakened less interest in their diffusion. The second Epistle of John is addressed to a Christian lady and her family ; the third to a Christian friend named Gaius. Of the private circumstances of these two persons we know nothing hut what is indicated in the letters. Now, although certainly these two smaller Epistles afford no important information respecting the Gospel, or the history of the ancient church, still, as estimable lega- cies of the disciple who lay in Jesus' bosom, they deserve a place in the canon as much as Paul's Epistle to Philemon. The oldest fathers of the church express no doubt in regard to the two Epistles. Only at a later period do we find certain individuals entertaining doubts whether these two Epistles were written by John the Evan- gelist. No one regarded them as forged in the name of the Evan- gelist, for we can by no means perceive for what purpose these Epistles could, in such a case, have been written. They aim at no particular object, but are merely expressive of the tenderest Chris- tian love. Many, however, believed that another John, viz., John the Presbyter, before mentioned, with whom Papias was acquainted, was the author of the Epistles. This view appeared confirmed by the fact that, in the salutations of both Epistles, John expressly terms himself Presbyter; and as, moreover, the other John likewise lived in Ephesus, it is possible they might have been confounded. But in modern times these doubts in regard to the apostolic cha- racter of the two small Epistles have been disregarded, because the style and the sentiments of both Epistles are so entirely similar to the style and course of thought in the Gospel and the first Epistle, that the idea of a different author is totally untenable. Moreover, we are able to show how John the Apostle and Evangelist might also call himself Presbyter. This expression is nearly equivalent to the Latin Senior, or the German ^Elteste. 1 In the Jewish synagogues, and also among the primitive Christians, it was applied to the prin- cipal persons in the church (cornp. Acts xx. 17), and was at first used in this sense as exactly synonymous with Episcopos, i. e., bishop. In Asia Minor, as we know from the writings of Papias, there prevailed a peculiar custom of speaking, by which the apostles were called, as it were by way of distinction, elders. Whether the intention was thereby to denote the great age of the apostles, or whether all the churches were regarded as forming one general 1 Or the English elder, as it is translated in our version. TH. XC1Y THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. church, and the apostles as their presbyters, is doubtful. It is suffi- cient that the apostles were thus termed, 1 by way of eminence, for in this fact is exhibited a sufficient explanation of the inscriptions to the second and third Epistles of John. Thus the case is the same with these two Epistles as with that to the Hebrews. The primitive church adopted them, but not without opposition, and therefore we must reckon them among the Antilegomena ; but still the reasons which were addressed against their apostolic origin may be so thoroughly refuted that not a shadow of uncertainty can reasonably remain in regard to them. The fourth of the seven Catholic Epistles is the first Epistle of the Apostle Peter. As we have now come to the consideration of the Petrine writings in the canon, the question forces itself upon us, how is it to be explained that we have so few productions of Peter, and so many of Paul, who was called latest to be an apostle. When we consider what our Lord said to Peter : " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matth. xvi. 18), and afterwards : " Feed my lambs" (John xxi. 15 seq.), it must seem strange that the powers of this rock of the church should have been exerted so little in writings for posterity. It is true the Gospel of Mark is properly Peter's Gospel, as we have seen ; but even this falls into the back-ground by the side of Luke (the Pauline Gospel), and the other Gospels, so that Peter according to the representation of him- self in his writings, constantly appears insignificant compared with Paul. This fact finds a satisfactory explanation only in the relation of the two apostles, Peter and Paul, to the propagation of the Gospel in general. In reference to this, they had different destinations. Peter, with the twelve, was called particularly to the dissemination of the Gospel among the Jews. Had the Jewish nation acknowl- edged Jesus to be the Messiah, Peter would then have exhibited himself in all his dignity and consequence. But that unhappy na- tion hardened itself against all the operations of the Spirit, and the Gospel was carried to the Gentiles, because Israel rejected the grace to which it was called. Paul was set apart for the express purpose of preaching to the Gentiles (Acts xxvi. 17), and, as Christianity first displayed itself in a flourishing condition among them, all the other apostles, with the exception of John alone, fell into the back- ground in comparison with Paul, both in oral discourse, as appears from the Acts, and in these written efforts, as is shown by the New Testament canon. It is, consequently, not at all strange that Peter should be represented by two Epistles of so small a size, and that the second of these is, moreover, the most disputed book in the 1 I*eter calls himself in his first Epistle, a feUow-elder (1 Pet. v. 1). THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. XCV whole New Testament canon. His being thrown into the shade by Paul is rather in accordance with the facts respecting the extension of the church of Christ on earth in the times of the apostles. As to the first Epistle of Peter, we have before seen that it be- longs among the Homologoumena, along with the first Epistle of John. In all Christian antiquity there was no one who doubted the genunineness of the Epistle, or had heard of doubts respecting it. And yet the Epistle (1 Pet. i. 1) is addressed to the Christian churches in Asia Minor, where Christianity early gained great suc- cess, and where a lively intercourse was maintained between the in- dividual churches. Here, of necessity, must have arisen soon an opposition to this Epistle, if it had not been known that Peter had sent a circular letter to the churches. Now, the oldest fathers of the church in Asia Minor, Papias and Polycarp, both made use of the Epistle of Peter, as well as that of John, as a genuine apostolic production. This Epistle of Peter does not seem to have made its way to Italy till a late period. At least it is wanting in the very ancient catalogue cited by Muratori, which probably exhibits the canon of the early Eoman church. We can infer nothing, however, from this absence against the genuineness of the first Epistle of Peter, since there is not the slightest trace of its having been dis- puted in the first three centuries. Yet, in modern times, this de- cided declaration of Christian antiquity has been thought insufficient. An objection has been founded on the circumstance that Peter writes from Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13), while history does not relate that he was ever in Babylon ; as also upon the fact that he directs the at- tention of his readers to sufferings and persecutions which they should endure (1 Pet. i. 6 ; iii. 16 ; iv. 12 seq.] v. 10), referring, as is supposed, to Nero's persecutions, while he himself, it is said, died at Home during this persecution, and therefore could not have ad- dressed an Epistle from Babylon to those who suffered under it. Both these remarks, however, are easily obviated. As to the first, respecting the city of Babylon, we know too little of the history of Peter to be able to determine in what places he may have been, and in what not ; particularly as there were several cities of this name in the ancient world, and it is not specified which is meant in the Epistle. It is to be observed, too, that many of the fathers of the church understood the name Babylon to mean mystically the city of Home, which showed itself the enemy of our Lord in the persecution of the faithful (Comp. Kev. xviii. 2). If this expo- sition be adopted, the second remark also is at once obviated ; for, in that case, the Epistle was written by Peter in Rome itself during the persecution, and he gave the believers in Asia Minor Christian exhortations in reference to such a grievous period among them. Yet, as this explanation cannot be proved to be correct, we set it XCV1 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. aside, and merely observe, that in whatever Babylon Peter may have written his Epistle, his residence there can be easily reconciled with the exhortations which the Epistle contains. For, though these may be referred to the persecution of Nero, they may be un- derstood with equal propriety as referring to any other persecution, since all individual characteristics, which could suit only this first cruel persecution of the church, are entirely wanting. Such general sufferings as these which Peter mentions must be supposed to have been endured by the church everywhere and at all times, as it is always comprehended in the very idea of a believer that he should excite opposition in those who are of a worldly inclination, and thus cause a combat. A more important objection than these two remarks is, that the style and ideas of the first Epistle of Peter exhibit a strong resemblance to the style and ideas of Paul This cannot be denied, for it is too evident not to be observed ; but it does not serve its intended purpose, viz., to deprive Peter of the authorship of the Epistle. Notwithstanding all its similarity to Paul's manner, it still maintains enough independence and peculiar- ity to stamp it as the production of a man who thought for himself. As moreover, when Peter wrote this Epistle, he was connected (1 Pet. v. 12) with the old friend and companion of Paul, Sylvanus (or, as abbreviated, Silas), nothing is more easy than to suppose that Peter dictated to the latter, and in all probability in the Hebrew language, which alone seems to have been perfectly familiar to him. In translating into Greek, Sylvanus, who, from long intimacy with Paul, had become very much habituated to his diction, may have adopted many of its characteristics, and thus have been the occasion of the somewhat Pauline colouring which the Epistle possesses. CHAPTER VIII. OF THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. IN regard to the second Epistle of Peter, its case is very differ- ent from that of the first. The former has always been so violent- ly attacked, and suspected on such plausible grounds of not having been written by the Apostle Peter, that criticism is encompassed with as much difficulty in relation to it as in relation to any other book of the New Testament. And, moreover, such is the state of the matter, that the critical investigation of this Epistle is of par- ticular importance. For, as we remarked in Chapter I., while, in regard to many writings of the New Testament (e. g., the Epistle to the Hebrews, the second and third Epistles of John), the question THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. XCV11 is, not so much whether they are genuine or spurious, as who was their author, in regard to the second Epistle of Peter, the question is, in truth, whether the Apostle Peter composed it, or some other Peter, or somebody of another name, who meant no harm, but still purposely endeavoured to deceive his readers into the belief that it was written by Simon Peter, the Apostle of our Lord. In the first place, the -author of the Epistle not only expressly appropriates Peter's name and title, " Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. i. 1), but he also states particulars respecting his own life, which can have been true only of Peter. He says, for instance, " For we have not followed cunningly-devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice, which came from heaven, we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount," (2 Pet. i. 16 18). These words, it is clear, refer to the transfiguration on the mount (Matt. xvii. 1, seq.) But, besides James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, no one was a spectator of this transfiguration ex- cept the Apostle Peter. If, therefore, the Apostle Peter was not the author of this letter, the man who not only presumed to take upon himself the name of an apostle, but designedly endeavoured to make his readers think that he was the Apostle Peter, must have been a downright shameless imposter ; and his production should by no means retain its place in the canon, but it is necessary that it should be at once thrust out of it. It is for this very reason, viz., because the necessity of which we have spoken has been sensibly felt, that the friends of the work have so zealously prosecuted the investigation respecting it ; though cer- tainly not always with due impartiality and coolness. It has been forgotten that in truth very important objections may be urged against the Petrine origin of this second Epistle, and it has been attempted to establish its genuineness as firmly and incontrovertibly as it is possible to establish that of other writings. The best weapon, however, which can be used in defence of God's word, is always truth ; and this compels us to admit that it is impossible to attain so firm and certain proof of the genuineness of the second Epistle of Peter, as of that of other books of the New Testament. But certainly the opponents of the Epistle err greatly when they assert that the spuriousness of the Epistle can be fully established. Such an assertion cannot but be denied with all earnestness, even though, as is often the case, it be connected with the opinion, that the Epistle may notwithstanding retain its place in the canon as hitherto, and be cited by preachers of the Gospel in their pulpit in- VOL. L 7 XCV111 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. structions. Such lax notions must be resisted with the utmost moral sternness. For, would it not be participating in the fraud of the author of the Epistle, were we to treat it as the genuine pro- duction of the Apostle Peter, while we consider it as spurious ! If it be really spurious, and can be proved to have gained its place in the canon only through mistake, then let it be removed from the collection of the sacred writings, which from its nature excludes every fraudulent production. Christian truth would not at all suffer by the removal of a single work of so slight extent. We are convinced, however, that no such step is necessary. The most prominent error in the critical investigation of this Epistle has been, that writers have always striven to prove beyond objec- tion either the genuineness or spuriousness of the production. It has been forgotten that between these two positions there was a medium, viz., an impossibility of satisfactorily proving either. It cannot seem at all strange that this impossibility should exist in in- vestigations respecting writings of the New Testament, if it be con- sidered for a moment how difficult it often is to determine respect- ing the genuineness of a production even shortly after, or at the very time of, its composition, if from any circumstance the decisive points in the investigation have remained concealed. As in regard to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews it is entirely impossible to come to any decided result, so it seems to me probable, that the de- ficiency of historical evidence makes it impossible to come to a fixed conclusion in regard to the second Epistle of Peter. It is certain there are several circumstances which give rise to reasonable doubts respecting the origin of the Epistle ; still, so much may be adduced, not only in refutation of them, but in the way of positive argu- ment for the Epistle, that these doubts are neutralized. Only, the favourable points do not amount to a complete, objectively valid proof, and therefore a critical investigation of the Epistle does not result exclusively to its advantage. Now this is certainly a very unpleasant result, and one satisfactory to neither party, for men commonly wish every thing to be decided in an absolute manner, and therefore would have the Epistle declared positively either genuine or spurious. But the main object should be the truth, and not an agreeable result ; and faithful, impartial examination leads us to the conclusion that in fact no perfect proof is to be obtained in regard to the second Epistle of Peter. This conclusion affords us the advantage, that we may with a good conscience leave the Epistle in its place among the canonical books, since it cannot rightfully be deprived of it until its spuriousness is decisively proved. Now, whether it shall or shall not be used in doctrinal argument, must be left to the judgment of each individual ; but at any rate no one can prohibit its use so long as its spuriousness remains unproved. THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. XC1X It is time, however, to consider more closely all that can be urged against the genuineness of the Epistle, and to present there- with the counter considerations which either invalidate the former or argue the apostolic composition of the Epistle. Now the most important circumstance which presents itself against the genuine- ness of the book is, that it was to such a degree unknown in Chris- tian antiquity. Not one of the fathers of the first two centuries mentions the second Epistle of Peter ; they all speak of but one Epistle from the hand of this apostle. Nor are there any passages in their writings which must of necessity be citations from it. Those passages which seem like parts of it may be explained either on the score of accidental coincidence or of mutual reference to the Old Testament. It was not till after Origen's time, in the third century, that the Epistle came into use, and even then doubts were always current in regard to its apostolic origin, and the learned father Jerome expressly remarks that most denied it such an origin. It is true, this statement cannot refer to all members of the church, but only to such as were capable of critical investigations ; for the same father of the church says further, that the reason why most denied it to be Peter's was, the difference in style which was ob- servable on comparison with the first ; and clearly, uneducated per- sons were incapable of judging as to such difference in style. But still, it is extremely remarkable that even in the time of Jerome, i. e., in the fifth century, there should be found in the church so many opponents of the Epistle. It is, however, to be considered, in estimating the importance of this fact in relation to the genuineness of the Epistle, that no definite historical arguments are adduced against the Epistle from any quar- ter. Recourse is had, not to the testimony of individuals, nor to the declaration of entire churches, which denied the Epistle to be Peter's, but merely to internal reasons, deduced by the aid of criti- cism. This is the more strange, as it would appear that this second Epistle of Peter was addressed to the very same readers for whom the first was designed (Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 1), i. e., to the Christians in several churches of Asia Minor. From these, one would think, there must have proceeded a testimony which could not be misun- derstood against the Epistle, if Peter had not written to them a second time. Nor do the fathers say, that the Epistle contains heresies or any thing else totally unworthy of the apostle : indeed they do not make the slightest objection of this kind to the charac- ter of its contents. If, on the other hand, we look at their objec- tions to other evidently fictitious writings, we find them asserting that they had an impious, detestable character, or that historical evidence was against their pretended apostolic origin. From the manner ID which history represents the testimony of the fathers of C THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. the church, we may suppose that their opinion respecting the genu- ineness of the Epistle was founded in a great measure upon the fact that its diffusion was very much delayed. Since so many writings had been forged in Peter's name, the fathers of the church probably at once regarded an Epistle which came so late into circulation with some considerable suspicion, and then made use of the difference in language, or something of the kind, to confirm this suspicion. We must therefore say, that no decisive argument against the genuine- ness of the Epistle is to be drawn from historical considerations. Although it was but little known in the ancient church, this want of acquaintance with it may have been founded on reasons not at all connected with its spuriousness or genuineness. How many Epistles of Peter and other apostles may never have been much known ? And still the circumstance that they have not been diffused abroad does not disprove their apostolic origin. Thus, as the fathers of the church themselves had recourse to the internal character of the Epistle, it remains for us likewise to examine this, and as particular historical traditions respecting the Epistle were as inaccessible to these fathers as to us, and the art of criticism has not been carried to a high point of cultivation till re- cently, we may lay claim to greater probability, as to the result of our investigation, than they could. Among the striking circumstances to which we are led by a care- ful investigation concerning the second Epistle of Peter, the first which presents itself, is the very ancient observation, that the style of this Epistle is quite different from that of the first. According to the most recent examinations, the case is really so. The style of the second Epistle is so different from that of the first, as to make it hardly conceivable that the same author should have written thus variously; particularly as the two Epistles must have been written at no great distance of time from each other, it being necessary to refer them both to the latter part of the apostle's life. But we have seen above, that Peter probably employed another person to write for him when he composed his first Epistle ; now, how natural to suppose, as Jerome has already suggested, that in writing the second Epistle Peter only made use of a different assistant from the one employed in writing the first, which supposition satisfactorily ex- plains the difference in style. If it be insisted, however, that this supposition is a very violent one, we may then admit that the Epistles are in reality not apostolic, but are from Sylvanus, or some other writer. It is certainly true, that by this hypothesis we sur- render the common opinion, that Peter either guided the pen him- self, or at least dictated to the amanuensis word for word what he should write. But is it at all essential to admit that the writings of the apostles originated precisely in this way ? Is a prince's letter THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. Cl of less value, because his secretary wrote it, and the prince himself only signed it ? Do we esteem the writings of Mark and Luke any less because they were not apostles ? These last writings show best how the case is to be considered. Say that these two Epistles were written by Sylvanus or Mark ; is their importance to us in the least diminished, when Peter has given them the confirmation of hie apostolic authority, as presenting his ideas, his mode of thinking ? This hypothesis of Peter's having employed a writer in the com- position of the second Epistle, explains, moreover, another remark which it has been usual to urge against its apostolic origin. If the Epistle of Jude be compared with the second chapter of this Epistle, there will appear a very striking similarity between them. This, as in the case of the Gospels, is so great that it is impossible it should have arisen accidentally. An impartial comparison of the two makes it extremely probable that Jude is the original, and was em- ployed in the Epistle of Peter. Now this hardly seems suitable for the Apostle Peter, considering him as the author of the Epistle. He, the pillar of the church, should have been the original writer, though it would not have been strange that Jude, who held a far lower rank, should make use of his production. On the supposition, however, that Peter employed an individual to write for him, the latter might have made use of Jude's Epistle, and what would be totally unsuitable for an apostle, would not be at all strange in his assistant. If it be said that, as Peter must have known the use which was made of Jude, the circumstance still remains very strange, we may suppose that both, Peter (with his assistant) and Jude, conferred together in regard to combating the heretics, and agreed together in certain fundamental thoughts, and that thus coincidence in details was occasioned by their common written ground-work. Still, it may not be concealed, that, after all attempts to explain these appearances, there nevertheless remains in the mind something like suspicion ; and for this reason, although there are certainly not sufficient grounds for rejecting the Epistle, we cannot regard its genuineness as susceptible of proof. There are other points of less moment, which are usually brought forward by the opponents of the Epistle. Among these is the pas- sage 2 Peter iii. 2, in which the writer, it is said, is distinguished from the apostles, just as in Heb. ii. 3. But, in the first place, the reading in the former passage is not perfectly certain, since several ancient versions give it the same sense as Luther, who translates : " that ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of our Lord and Saviour." 1 But, even though we admit that to 1 So, too, in the English version. The question alluded to in the text is, whether we should translate, of us the apostles, or, of the aposttes sent to us (or to you, according to an- other reading)? See the original Greek. TK. CU THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. be the correct reading, is one by which the author is distinguished from the apostles, we may explain the passage by supposing that the writer who was employed, instead of speaking in the name of the apostle, spoke in his own person. This was certainly an over- sight, but not a very great one ; like that, e. g., which occasioned the Evangelists to differ from each other in respect to the number of the blind men whom our Lord healed, and other points of the kind. The admission of such trifling oversight belongs properly to God's plan in regard to the Scriptures, since literal coincidence would, on the other hand, give rise to strong suspicion in regard to the veracity of the writers (as it would suggest the inference that there had been previous concert between them), and, on the other hand, there would be danger of confounding the letter with the spirit, to the disadvantage of the latter. Of as little consequence is the reference made to 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16, where Peter says of his beloved brother Paul, whose wisdom he extols : " as also in all his Epistles, speaking in them of these things ; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction." These words, it is said, clearly suppose a collection of Pauline Epistles to have been current in the church ; but one cannot have been made earlier than the commencement of the second century, and consequently the Epistle must be regarded as a work of later origin. But this as- sumption, that the collection of the Pauline Epistles was first made at so late a period, is by no means susceptible of proof. Indeed, in the fourth chapter we attempted to prove it not improbable that even Paul himself made a collection of his Epistles. At all events, no historical fact can be adduced against this hypothesis, and we must therefore consider thus much as certain, that the mention of a collection of Pauline Epistles ought not to induce us to conclude against the apostolic origin of the Epistle whose history we are in- vestigating. Thus is confirmed the position which we laid down above, that not one of the reasons usually adduced against the genuineness of the second Epistle of Peter is a decisive one. Notwithstanding, as has been already mentioned, impartiality enjoins it upon us to allow that, after considering these reasons, there remains a feeling in the mind which does not permit us to place this Epistle in the rank of those universally admitted. We find ourselves constrained to resort first to one expedient, then to another, in order to invalidate the arguments which make against the genuineness of the Epistle. Let us, however, cast a glance at the other side, and consider the argu- ments which may be adduced in favour of the authenticity of the Epistle. The impression made by the genuine apostolic manner, in THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. CIU the first and third chapters in particular, is so heart-stirring, the severe moral tone which prevails throughout them is so forcible, that very estimable scholars have found themselves induced to regard these two chapters, or at least the first, as truly Petrine, and the second or the last two as, perhaps, merely subsequent additions to the genuine Epistle. This hypothesis has indeed, at first view, this recommendation, that we can give proper weight to the reasons for doubt, without being obliged to regard the express statements re- specting Peter personally as having been forged. But the close connection of all the chapters with each other, and the uniformity of the language and ideas throughout the Epistle is too much at variance with the supposition of an interpolation of the Epistle, to make it right that it should be admitted. Still, we cannot but allow the great weight of the reason from which the hypothesis took its rise, viz., that it was an almost incon- ceivable piece of impudence for an impostor to assume the person of the Apostle Peter, so as even to speak of his presence at the trans- figuration on Mount Tabor, and venture to invent prophecies of our Lord to him respecting his end. (Comp. 2 Pet. i. 14). It is true, appeal is made, on this point, to the practice of the ancients, ac- cording to which it was not so strange and censurable, it is said, to write under another's name, as it appears to us at the present day. And it is undoubtedly true, that in the primitive times of the church writings were much more frequently forged in the name of others than at the present time. But it is a question whether this is to be referred to the custom of the times, or does not rather arise from the fact, that in the less methodical book-transactions of the ancient world, it was much easier to get fictitious writings into circulation than it is at present, on account of the great publicity which now attends such transactions. At any rate, we must say, that it was a very culpable practice, if it ever was common, to procure currency for one's literary productions by aifixing a great name to them ; and every honourable man would have avoided it and written only in his own name. Suppose, however, it was less offensive than now to publish any thing under an assumed name, we must notwith- standing protest in the most earnest manner against the idea, that a man could permit himself fraudulently to appropriate such points from the life of him whose name he used as could be true only of the latter ; which must be the case in regard to this Epistle, if it was not written by Peter. Were this to be done in any case, the use of another's name would no longer be a mere form in writing, it would rather be a coarse piece of imposture, such as could not oc- cur without a decidedly wrong intention ; and this leads us to a new and important point in the investigation of the origin of the second Epistle of Peter. CIV THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETEB. The alternative in which we are thus placed is as harsh as it could possibly be. Either the Epistle is genuine and apostolical, or it is not only spurious and forged, but was forged by a bold, shame- less impostor, and such a person must have had an evil design in executing a forgery of the land supposed. Now in the whole Epis- tle we do not find the slightest thing which can be regarded as er- roneous or as morally bad. Its contents are entirely biblical, and truly evangelical. An elevated religious spirit animates the Epistle throughout. Is it conceivable, that a man actuated by this spirit can be chargeable with such a deception ? Or is it supposed that this spirit is itself feigned ? But this idea plainly contradicts itself, for he who is bad enough to forge writings cannot entertain the de- sign of extending a good influence by his forgery. No forgery would be necessary for such a purpose. The design must have been to de- fend what was unholy in principle or practice under cover of a sacred name. The only probable purpose of the forgery of the Epistle is this ; that the unknown author of the production wished to combat the heretics described in the second chapter, and in order that he might do this with some effect, he wrote in the name of the Apostle Peter, and made use of the Epistle of Jude in doing so. But if a man who was honest (in other respects) could have been induced to enter upon such a crooked path, would he not have contented him- self with placing the apostle's name in front of his Epistle ? Would his conscience have permitted him to appropriate falsely from the life of the apostle such particulars as are narrated in the Epistle? This is really hard to believe, and the efforts made to preserve the genuineness of the first chapter at least, which contains these very particulars, sufficiently prove how universal is the feeling that the statements it contains cannot have been forged. It is true the case would stand otherwise, if it were a well- founded position, that the Epistle really contains erroneous tenets. But how truly impossible it is to establish this, is very evident from the nature of the points adduced as errors. In the first place, one is supposed to be contained in the passage, 2 Peter iii. 5, in which it is said, that the earth was formed out of water and in water by the word of God. 1 It is true, there are parallels to this view of the creation^of the earth in several mythical cosmogonies ; but is this circumstance a proof that the doctrine of the creation of the world out of water is false? Does the Mosaic account of the creation, or any other passage in the Bible, contain any thing which in the slightest degree impugns it? Or does the condition of the physical or geological sciences in our day prove that the earth certainly came into existence in a different manner? It will suffice, in regard to 1 Our English version gives a somewhat different sense to this passage ; but probably the translation above conveys nearly, if not exactly, its true signification. TR. THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. CV this point, to remind our readers that the formation of the earth out of water was taught by the celebrated De Luc, not to mention many men of less note. At the most, then, it can only be said that in the passage referred to, there is something openly and definitely stated which is not found thus stated in any other book of the Bible ; though it is impossible to deny that the Mosaic account of the crea- tion (" The Spirit of Grod moved upon the face of the waters") is susceptible of such an interpretation, as to convey the idea which is more plainly declared in 2 Pet. iii. 5. Thus there is no ground for talking about an error in this passage of the Epistle. The same remarks may be made respecting another position, that the doctrine (also presented in the third chapter of the second Epistle of Peter) concerning the destruction of the world by fire is erroneous. For it can by no means be shown in regard to this second idea, that it contradicts the common statement of the Bible, or contains any thing incorrect. Indeed, there are other passages, likewise, that contain an intimation, at least, of the same thing which is here openly stated. (Comp. Isaiah li. 6 ; Zeph. iii. 8). And so far are the similar mythical accounts in other religions from arguing any thing wrong in this idea, that we should rather consider the coinci- dence of the mythical accounts with the biblical doctrine as a confir- mation of the real verity of the former. If, therefore, we put together all which has been said of the second Epistle of Peter, thus much is certainly clear, that the cir- cumstances which are calculated to excite suspicion respecting the Epistle, are by no means sufficient to constitute a formal proof of their spuriousness. True, the suspicious points cannot be so per- fectly obviated, that every doubt will disappear. Some uncertainty will remain in the mind. Still the positive arguments in behalf of its genuineness so far allay these doubts that it is possible to obtain a satisfactory subjective conviction of the genuineness of the Epis- tle. But a proof of its genuineness which shall be of perfect valid- ity and be generally acknowledged can no more be attained than such a proof of its spuriousness ; and, therefore, there will always be something dubious in the position of this Epistle. The ancient fathers of the church endeavoured to express this uncertainty by the term Antilegomena, and later teachers in the evangelical church by the designation Deutero-canonical writings, among which this Epis- tle is reckoned. Attempts to remove all the obscurity which en- velopes the facts in regard to this Epistle will probably always prove vain, from the want of historical accounts respecting the use and dif- fusion of it in primitive times. CVJ THE EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. CHAPTER IX. OF THE EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. IN investigating the Epistles of James and Jude, the question is, as in the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews, not so much whe- ther they are genuine or spurious, as who was their author. This may seem strange, inasmuch as the authors of both of them men- tion themselves in the salutations, which is not the case as to the Epistle to the Hebrews. Indeed, Jude, for the purpose of designa- ting himself still more definitely, adds the circumstance that he was the brother of James. But, as both these names were very common among the Jews, and the relations between the persons of this name mentioned in the New Testament are quite involved, it is a very difficult inquiry, what James and what Jude were the authors of the Epistles which we are considering. Now, if it should be probable, on investigation, that the authors of the two Epistles were not apostles (*'. e. among the number of the twelve disciples), then will arise a second inquiry, what we are to think of the canonical authority of the Epistles? The first question is, how many persons of the name of James and Jude are mentioned in the Scriptures or by ancient Chris- tian writers? From the catalogues of the twelve apostles (Matt. x. 2 seq.; Mark iii. 13 seq.; Luke vi. 12 seq.; Acts i. 13 seq.), we perceive that two individuals among them were named James. The first was the brother of the Evangelist John, a son of Zebedce and Salome ; this James is often mentioned in the evangelical history. His brother Peter, and himself, were of all the apostles the most intimate with our Lord. He was present at the transfiguration and at our Lord's agony in the garden of G-ethsemane. According to Acts xii. 2, Herod killed him with the sword a few years after our Lord's ascension. As, therefore, this James disappeared from the scene of events very early, he does not cause much difficulty in the investigation. The second James is termed the son of Alphasus, and of this apostle we have so uncertain accounts, that it is diffi- cult to determine much respecting him. As there were two individuals of the name of James among the twelve, so there were two Judes. One, the betrayer of our Lord, of course is not concerned in this investigation. He cannot be con- founded with any one else ; especially as he had the surname Isoa- riot from his birth-place Carioth. The second Jude, it would seem, bore many names ; for while Luke (in the Gospel as well as in the Acts) calls hun Jude the son of James, Matthew and Mark call THE EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. CV11 him sometimes Thaddeus, and sometimes Lebbeus. It was not at all uncommon among the Jews for one man to bear several names ; and, therefore, we may admit the validity of the prevalent opinion that Lebbeus or Thaddeus, and Jude, the son of James, are the same individuals. In John xiv. 22, a second Jude among the twelve is expressly distinguished from Jude (Judas) the traitor, who is termed Iscariot ; and hence the name Jude may have been the one by which the former was most commonly designated. Now did we know with perfect certainty that the authors of the Epistles under consideration were of the number of the twelve, it would be easy to fix upon the individuals ; James, the son of Al- phaeus must have written the Epistle of James, and Jude, the son of James, that of Jude. But as Jude (v. 1) calls himself the bro- ther of James, he must either mean another man of this name known to his readers, or we must suppose the term brother to signi- fy step-brother or cousin, as indeed the word is often used in He- brew. For the opinion of some, that in the catalogues of the apos- tles (see Luke's Gospel and his Acts of the Apostles), Jude is not called the son but the brother of James, must be totally rejected, because, though it is true that sometimes the word brother is to be supplied for the genitive following a proper name, this is onty the case when it is clear from the connection what is to be supplied. In the apostolic catalogue, however, son is everywhere else to be sup- plied for the genitive ; and hence it is incredible that in the case of Jude alone brother must be added. But that the authors of these two Epistles of James and Jude were among the number of the twelve is very uncertain (indeed, as we shall show hereafter, improbable), and on that account we have still to determine the difficult question, what persons of these names wrote the Epistles? The following reasons show the uncer- tainty of the idea that the authors of the Epistles were apostles. In the first place, the fathers of the church speak of another James, the brother of our Lord, and first bishop of Jerusalem, and another Jude, likewise the brother of our Lord, as the authors of the Epis- tles ; and, moreover, these were disputed by many, and reckoned among the Antilegomena, clearly for this reason alone, that it was supposed perfectly correct to regard them as not apostolical. Thus, in the opinion of the fathers, there were beside the two Jameses and Judcs among the twelve, two other persons of these names, called brothers of our Lord. These are mentioned in the passage Matt, xiii. 55, with two other brothers of our Lord, Simon and Joses, and with sisters of his whose names are not given. They are also men- tioned in the later history of the apostolic age (Acts xv. 13 seq.; Gal. i. 19 ; ii. 9), particularly James, who is designated with Peter and John as a pillar of the church. According to the fathers of the CV111 THE EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. church, he was the first bishop of Jerusalem, and the description which the New Testament gives of his position and operations per- fectly accords with this statement. According to the account of the Jewish writer, Josephus, and a very ancient Christian historian, named Hegesippus, this James, the brother of our Lord, died a martyr's death at Jerusalem shortly before its destruction. He pos- sessed such authority and such reputation for piety among the Jews, that, according to Josephus, the destruction of the city was a pun- ishment from heaven for the execution of this just man. James was succeeded in the bishopric of Jerusalem by another brother of our Lord, viz., Simon (Matth. xiii. 55), who, as well as the third brother Jude, lived till the reign of the Emperor Trajan, i. e., to the end of the first century' after Christ. According to the account of Hege- sippus, Simon also died a martyr's death, like his brother ; of the manner of Jude's end nothing definite is known. Although, how- ever, we find these brethren of our Lord labouring with ardent Christian zeal .after the resurrection of the Saviour, still, in the life- time of our Lord they did not believe on him. This we are told by John expressly (vii. 5), and therefore, we do not observe these brethren of Jesus among the disciples until after his resurrection from -the dead (Acts i. 14). Probably the vision with which (ac- cording to 1 Cor. xv. 7), James was favoured, was the means of con- vincing them all of the Divine dignity of our Lord, which hitherto, perhaps on the very account of their close relationship to him by blood, they had been unable to credit. It is true the expression, brothers of our Lord, is not to be understood as meaning what the words strictly signify ; for Mary, the mother of our Lord, appears not to have had any other children. The passages Matth. i. 25, Luke ii. 7, in which Jesus is called the first-born son of Mary, prove nothing to the contrary, since, if no more children follow, the only son is also the first-born. If the statements of Scripture respecting these brethren of our Lord be put together, it cannot be doubted, that the children of the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, are intended by the expression. This sister of Mary was likewise named Mary, and was the wife of a certain Cleophas. She stood with the mother of Jesus beneath the cross of our Lord, as did also Mary Magdalene (John xix. 25). This saYne Mary is called in the parallel passage of Mark (xv. 40) the mother of James the Less and of Joses. Here, then, are named two of the persons who in Matth. xiii. 55, are termed brothers of our Lord. Nothing, therefore, is more natural, as it nowhere appears that Mary had any other chil- dren, than to suppose that these so-called brethren of our Lord were his cousins, the sons of his mother's sister. As it is probable that Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus, died at an early period (for he is not mentioned after the journey to Jerusalem hi the twelfth year of THE EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. CLX Jesus' age), Mary perhaps went to live with her sister, and thus Jesus grew up with the sons of the latter, which may have been the reason why it was so difficult for them to give credit to his Divine authority. It was very common in the Hebrew idiom to term cousins brothers. Hence in Gen. xni. 8, Abraham and Lot, who were cousins, are termed brothers. If we were to take the word brother in its literal sense, and regard the four brothers of our Lord mentioned in Matth. xiii. 55 as own children of Mary, the mother of Jesus, we should have to suppose the extraordinary circumstance that the two mothers of the same name had also children named alike. Now, as we nowhere find mention, first of our Lord's brethren, and then of his cousins, but the same relations are always referred to, this supposition, cannot be admitted. The same may be said of another supposition, according to which two of these so- called brethren of our Lord, viz., Jude and James, were of the num- ber of the twelve. For it is said that the Hebrew name which lies at the basis of the Greek one, Cleophas (abbreviated Klopas), viz., Chalpai, may also in Greek become Alphaeus. Thus James the son of Alphaeus would be equivalent to Jumes the son of Cleophas. Now, it is true, that on the score of philology nothing can be reasonably objected against this supposition ; but, its validity is over- thrown by the fact that one and the same writer (viz. Luke), pre- sents both forms. Although the name could be differently expressed in Greek, at least the same writer would always have followed the same mode. Moreover, as we have already remarked, it is in- admissible to supply the word brother, instead of son, after the name Jude. Lastly, it is a decisive circumstance, that in John vii. 5 it is most expressly stated that the brethren of Jesus did not be- lieve on him. It is, therefore, impossible that they should have been of the number of the twelve. Consequently, the New Testa- ment mentions, besides the James, son of Zebedee, who was early exe- cuted, two other persons of this name, first the apostle, who was a son of Alphseus, and next, the brother of our Lord, the first bishop of Jerusalem. Thus, too, the' New Testament mentions, besides the Apostle Jude, who was the son of a certain James, of whom we know nothing, another Jude who, likewise, was a brother of our Lord, and lived to a late period (till the time of Trajan), in Pales- tine. That these two brothers of our Lord, and not the apostles, were the authors of our Epistles, has been already intimated and will now be more fully shown. Of great importance, and indeed almost decisive by itself, is the circumstance, that the fathers of the church refer the Epistle of James to the brother of our Lord of that name ; and, too, the fathers who lived in that very region which was the scene of the labours of this celebrated bishop of Jerusalem, viz., the east. Here CX THE EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. they might and must have had the most exact accounts respecting this distinguished man, and information as to his writings must have spread itself very readily from Jerusalem to the neighbouring coun- tries of Syria and Egypt. This historical testimony is confirmed very strongly by the great agreement which exists between the con- tents of the Epistle and the communications which are made by ancient fathers of the church, and particularly Hegesippus, in re- gard to the peculiar habits of James. According to the account of this writer, James distinguished himself by forms of piety which were very like those inculcated in the Old Testament. He fasted and prayed a great deal, so that, as Hegesippus relates, probably with some exaggeration, his knees had become callous. According to the New Testament, too (comp. Acts xv. with Gal. ii, 12), James, the brother of our Lord, appears to have been the head of the Jewish Christians. He, therefore, undoubtedly observed the Mosaic law, even after he became a Christian, and endeavoured to obtain the sanctity enjoined in the Old Testament. That, however, this en- deavour 1 was not a narrow-minded one, as among the Ebionites, but a liberal one, as among the Nazarenes, is plainly shown by the nar- rative in the Acts, according to which he did not, along with the obstinate Judaizers, desire to impose the observance of the law upon the Gentiles, but only adhered to it himself, as a pious practice of his fathers. Still his whole disposition leaned somewhat to the side of the law, and this is clearly exhibited in the Epistle. The same is true of Jude likewise. His very designation of him- self as a brother of James can leave no doubt that he desired to represent himself as the brother of that James who was so celebra- ted, the first bishop of Jerusalem. He does not call himself an apostle, any more than James. Both term themselves merely serv- ants of Jesus Christ, neglecting from modest humility to make any mention of their relationship by blood to our Lord. We have no statements on the part of the early fathers of the church in regard to the author of the Epistle of Jude. The later fathers, e. g., Jerome, call him an apostle, but they did not for that reason mean a different Jude ; only, as might very easily happen, considering the confused accounts we have of these men, they sometimes placed Jude the brother of our Lord among the number of the twelve, con- trary to John vii. 5. Another as important reason for believing that James the brother of our Lord, and not the Apostle James, was regarded as the author of the Epistle, is the circumstance that it was reckoned among the Antilegomena. Doubts did indeed arise, but not till a pretty late day. Clement of Rome, Hennas, and Irenaeus, make use of the Epistle 1 The original reads Schreiben, which I take to be clearly a mistake for Streben, and translate accordingly. Ta. THE EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. Cxi without scruple. Origen first, then Eusebius, mention doubts. Now, as before the time of Jerome, there is no trace of the Epistle's having been regarded as forged in James' name, the ground of doubt can have been no other than that it was questionable whether an Epistle of any one not an apostle could claim admission into the canon. Jerome observes, that certain individuals believed the Epistle of James to have been forged by some one in his name. This opin- ion, however, is entirely devoid of probability, because in such case the author would not have neglected to ascribe the dignity of apostle to the James whom he wished to be regarded as the writer of the Epistle, that it might be more sure of admission into the canon. Those persons, therefore, of whom Jerome speaks, and who undoubt- edly resided in the west, probably entertained doctrinal scruples respecting the Epistle. In the west, and particularly in Eome, the centre of the western churches, special regard was felt for Paul and his doctrines. Now, the second chapter of the Epistle of James was supposed to contain erroneous notions in contrariety to Paul, be- cause as was thought, it inculcated justification by works instead of by faith. This passage even misled Luther into a rejection of the Epistle of James. In his preface to it he says, " This James does nothing but urge his readers to the law and to works, and his man- ner is so confused that I imagine he was some pious man who had gathered a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles, and put them down upon paper. . . . Hence the Epistle of James is but a strawy Epistle ; it has by no means an evangelical tone." In more recent times, however, it has been proved, by very thorough and impartial investigations, that this harsh judgment of Luther is certainly unfounded, together with the apprehensions of the ancient fathers mentioned by Jerome. James only opposed misconstructions and perversions of Paul's real doctrine, not the great apostle of the Gentiles himself. The two great teachers of the church are essentially one in sentiment ; only they had reference to different heresies, and thus their language wears a different aspect. In the Epistles to the Komans and Gala- tians, Paul presents the doctrine of faith, and justification thereby, in opposition to the reliance which the Jews placed on works. James, on the other hand, opposes a dead imaginary faith, which, without any renovating influence over the heart and mind, lulls a man into the sleep of sin, instead of making him active in works of love. If we thus consider the language of the two apostles with reference to the positions which they respectively opposed, we shall perceive the most perfect unity between these two teachers of the church, notwithstanding all their freedom and peculiarity of man- ner. Though they taught the same doctrines, their point of view was different. Paul had a predominant leaning towards faith, not CX11 THE EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. meaning by any means, however, to deny that it must bear good works as its fruit ; James directed his attention more to the fruit, without, however, disparaging the root of faith from which alone they could spring. 1 Thus, leaving wholly out of view the influence of doctrinal ideas, the discrepancy between the ancient fathers of the church was only whether the Epistle, as proceeding from the brother of our Lord, who was not an apostle, should or should not be admitted into the canon. The East, in general, maintained that it should, because James had exerted so much influence in that region ; the Christians of the West were less favourable to it. In reality, then, the question was not in regard to the genuineness of the Epistle, but in regard to the rank of James, whether or not he should be placed on a level with the apostles in respect to the abundance and power of the Spirit poured out upon him, so that a writing of his might be received into the canon as a norm of faith and practice for all future genera- tions of Christians ; a question which we will soon consider further. In regard to this second point, likewise, the case is the same with the Epistle of Jude as with that of James ; except that in the accounts concerning this Epistle given by ancient fathers we do not find the slightest evidence that the Epistle was ever regarded as the production of an impostor who forged it in Jude's name. Such a supposition respecting this Epistle is extremely improbable. In such case, would an impostor have contented himself' with designa- ting Jude as the " brother of James." Would he not at least have expressly called him an apostle of our Lord, in order to gain a place for the Epistle in the canon ? When we are told, therefore, of op- position to the Epistle, which caused it to be placed among the An- tilegomena, we must refer it all to a refusal to accord to the author of the Epistle, who was not an apostle, sufficient consideration to procure its admission into the canon. Thus in regard to the Epistle of Jude, likewise, the point in question is, not the genuineness of the Epistle, but only the personal standing of the author, which by some of the fathers of the church was considered equal to that of an apostle, and by others inferior. The investigation of this question, then, what we are to think of the admission of two productions of writers who were not apostles into the canon of the New Testament, remains for the conclusion of this chapter. Now, whether it be said, that the church has forsaken its prin- ciple of admitting no writing into the canon which was not either written by an apostle or composed under his supervision and author- ity, in admitting the Epistles of James and Jude ; or that they in- 1 See more complete discussions of the supposed discrepancy between Paul and James on the subject of faith and works, in the Biblical Repository, voL iii., p. 189, and voL iv., p. 683. TE. THE EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JTJDE. Cxiii deed adhered to their principle, but erred in regarding James and Jude, the brethren of our Lord, to whom they correctly ascribed the Epistles, as apostles, and therefore admitting their Epistles into the canon either way, it would seem as though we of the present day were entitled to charge antiquity with mistake respecting these Epistles. As to the Epistle of Jude the case certainly seems to be as we have here stated it. It was written by one who was not an apostle, by a man of whose acts and character we know nothing further ; a fact which appears to sustain the scruples of many of the ancients in regard to its being canonical. Moreover, it contains nothing which is not also found in the second Epistle of Peter, so that the church could dispense with it without suffering the slight- est loss. We might therefore be disposed to consider this Epistle as a deutero-canonical production, which was received into the canon only at a late period on the ground that it was more advisable to preserve every writing of the days of the apostles than to reject any thing which might be of apostolic origin. It is not to be forgotten, however, that the use of Jude's Epistle in the second Epistle of Peter must be considered an apostolic confirmation of the former, if the latter be acknowledged genuine. Both productions, therefore, stand or fall together. The impossibility, however, of proving beyond doubt the genuineness of the second Epistle of Peter, will not permit the friends of these Epistles to entertain any thing more than a sub- jective conviction in regard to the authority of Jude. The case is different, however, with the Epistle of James. For this remarkable man appears, both according to the New Testament and according to the fathers of the church, to have occupied a very influential position. It is true he was not of the number of the twelve ; but the fact that our Lord appeared to him separately, as he did to Peter (1 Cor. xv. 7), indicates his consequence ; as does also the circumstance that he was elected bishop of Jerusalem, and especially his relation to the Jewish Christians, of whom James seems to have been the real head. Hence in Gal. ii. 9, this man, with Peter and John, is called a pillar of the church, and Josephus represents the consideration in which he was held among the Jews to have been so great, that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Komans was looked upon as a judgment for his death. Although, therefore, James was no apostle, and moreover, no one of the twelve, so far as we know, afforded his confirmation to the Epistle, still the church might well have considered itself entitled to insert the pro- duction of so influential a man in the canon. It may be said, in- deed, that James was in a precisely parallel situation to that of Paul (who too was not of the number of the twelve, and still en- joyed apostolic dignity) ; except that in regard to the appearance of our Lord which was vouchsafed to James, and the commissions VOL. I. 8 CX1V THE REVELATION OF JOHN. which were entrusted to him, we have not such particular informa- tion as is furnished us by the Acts respecting his appearance to Paul. Yet passing by this, we cannot but declare, that an apostolic confirmation of a particular book, such as we suppose in the case of Mark and Luke, according to the testimony of history, is nothing compared with the testimony which we have from Paul's own mouth respecting James. He is designated, along with Peter and John, as a pillar of the whole church of God upon earth, and thus, though not one of the twelve, still placed entirely on a level with the pro- per apostles ; and hence no objection at all can be made to the re- ception of the Epistle by the church. She has not, in receiving it, deviated at all from her principles ; indeed, she has thereby rather applied them in their real spirit, not rigorously restricting the idea of apostolical estimation to the number of the twelve, but referring it to the fulness and power of the spirit exhibited in the life. This, however, as appears from the Epistle itself, and from history, was possessed in its utmost potency by James, as well as Paul, on which account the Epistle of the former richly merits a place among the canonical books. CHAPTER X. OF THE EEVBLATION 0"F JOHN. THE sublime book which concludes the New Testament, the Eevelation of St. "John, (6 tfeoAoyof,) with its wonderful images and visions, has met with a more extraordinary fate than any other writ- ing of the New Testament. The impressive and Absorbing nature of the contents of the book has seldom permitted any one to examine it with cool impartiality, and while some have become the enthu- siastic advocates of the book, others have appeared as its most vio- lent opponents, not only rejecting the work as not apostolical, or as forged, but even reviling it as the production of an heretical spirit. Thus it has happened, that, while no production of the New Testa- ment can exhibit more and stronger historical evidence of its genu- ineness and its apostolic authority than the Revelation, none has met with more antagonists ; and, indeed, many of its antagonists are men who have merited much gratitude from the church for their struggles in behalf of the truth. Among these is Luther, who shows himself a determined opponent of John's Eevelation. He says, in his preface to it : " There are various and abundant reasons why I regard this book as neither apostolical nor prophetic. First and foremost ; the apos- THE REVELATION OF JOHN. CXV ties do not make use of visions, but prophesy in clear and plain language (as do Peter, Paul, and Christ also, in the Gospel) ; for it is becoming the apostolic office to speak plainly and without figure or vision, respecting Christ and his acts. Moreover, it seems to me far too arrogant for him to enjoin it upon his readers to regard this his own work as of more importance than any other sacred book, and to threaten that if any one shall take aught away from it, God will take away from him his part in the book of life (Rev. xxii. 19). Besides, even were it a blessed thing to believe what is contained in it, no man knows what that is. The book is believed in (and is really just the same to us) as though we had it not ; and many more valuable books exist for us to believe in. But let every man think of it as his spirit prompts him. My spirit cannot adapt itself to the production, and this is reason enough for me why I should not esteem it very highly." From this strong language of the great Reformer it is sufficiently evident how repulsive the contents of the Revelation were to him. As he termed the Epistle of James a strawy Epistle, because it seemed to him to contradict Paul's doctrine in regard to faith, so he rejected the Revelation, because the imagery of the book was unin- telligible to him. This was obscure to him from the fact that he could not thoroughly apprehend the doctrine of God's kingdom upon earth, which is exhibited in the Revelation, and forms the proper centre of every thing contained in it. The same point has at all times in the church operated very powerfully upon the judgments of learned men in regard to the Revelation ; and therefore we must, before any particular examina- tion of this production, make some general observations on the pro^ priety of permitting doctrinal views generally, and the doctrine of God's kingdom upon earth particularly, to have an influence on criticism. In recent times, critical investigations of the sacred books have pretty generally proceeded on the principle, that the doctrinal views ought not to exert any influence upon inquiries respecting the genu- ineness of the Scriptures. It has been easy to lay down this princi- ple, because generally 1 the binding authority of Sacred Writ has been denied, and writers have not felt it incumbent on them to admit as an object of faith every thing that was stated in genuine apostolic writings. Indeed, to many an investigator it has been, very gratify- ing, that in genuine writings of the apostles things should occur which to him seemed evident errors ; since in such case it be- came more easy to prove that the apostles even had stated many things erroneously, and that therefore what was true in their pro- ductions should be separated from what was false. With Luther, 1 That is, iu Germany. TR. CXV1 THE REVELATION OF JOHK however, and all the other old theologians the case was different. They acknowledged the Scriptures as binding on their faith, and therefore could by no means wholly exclude doctrinal considerations. For, were a book proved to be apostolical by all possible historical and internal arguments, and yet it plainly subverted the Gospel and preached a different Christ from the true historical Son of God and man, no faithful teacher of the church of Christ should receive and use any such production, notwithstanding all the evidence in its favour, any more than listen to an angel from heaven, who should bring another Gospel (Gal. i. 8). Such was Luther's position ; and in this view we may respect and honour his opposition to the Epis- tle of James and the Kevelation of John. His only error in this, in itself commendable, endeavour boldly to distinguish what was anti-christian was, that he decided too rashly and hastily, and thus did not investigate with sufficient thoroughness, and, on the ground of appearances merely, pronounced that to be not biblical which in reality was so. That this was the case in regard to his judgment concerning the discrepancy between James and Paul, is at the pre- sent day universally admitted. In regard to the Revelation, how- ever, many still think that he judged correctly, although, in my opinion, he erred here as much as in relation to the Epistle of James. We cannot say, therefore, that doctrinal considerations are not of the least consequence in critical investigations ; though certainly we must not permit them to have an improper influence, so as to disturb the historical investigation, nor too hastily make an objec- tive rule of our present subjective views, but endeavour to investi- gate more thoroughly what is at the moment obscure and inexplicable. Such an endeavour will often educe a modification of our views, and we may find that what seemed erroneous contains profound and sublime truth. In particular, this would undoubtedly be the case with many, if they could determine to consider more closely the doctrine respect- ing God's kingdom upon earth, which has always been the greatest cause of offence in the Revelation. True, it is not to be denied, that the history of the fortune of this doctrine is by no means cal- culated to favour it ; for every thing which human ignorance and human malice have been able to devise, appears to have concentrated itself in the misapprehensions of this doctrine. If, however, pains be taken to separate these misapprehensions and perversions from the doctrine itself, and we are impartial enough to consider, that often very profound truths, which take a mighty hold of the human mind, are most exposed to abuse, and may become most dangerous, and that hardly any other religion has been misused to such abomi- nable purposes as the Christian religion itself, and yet that it is not THE KEVELATION OF JOHN. CXV11 on that account the less true, or the less divine, he will easily attain the proper fundamental idea of the doctrine of God's kingdom upon earth ; which is so simple, that we cannot understand how its truth could ever be doubted, until we remember the farragos of non- sense which have been propounded under its sanction. This simple radical idea is merely, that as, in regard to an individual man, God, by the Saviour, redeems not merely a particular part of him, his spirit alone, his soul alone, or his body alone, but the whole man, his body, soul, and spirit, so the redeeming power of Christ has for its object the deliverance of the entire human race, and of the crea- tion in general, from the yoke of sin. As, therefore, the end of salvation for the individual is the glorification of his nature, the end of all things in the universe on the same principle is the glorifica- tion of the universe. Proceeding from this fundamental idea, the Revelation teaches in sublime imagery, agreeing perfectly with the statements of our Lord and the apostles (which are less formal, and rather take the doctrine for granted, and thus are more incidental), that a period will come in which not only, as has already been the case, the spirit of Jesus Christ should prevail in secret, and guide men's minds, but should also gain the victory externally, and found a kingdom of peace and righteousness upon earth. Now, that with the arrival of this reign of peace there will be connected on the one hand, the appearance of Jesus Christ, and a resurrection of many saints and pious men, and, on the other, a previous mighty struggle on the part of evil does indeed follow very naturally from the fundamental idea, and the supposed development of good and evil ; but these points are only incidental. The principal idea is the perfect return of the supremacy of good, the restoration of the lost paradise to an earth which has been laid waste by sin. Millions desire this most earnestly, hope and pray for it even, without ever imagining that it is the very doctrine which they think themselves bound to oppose, or at least unable to admit, without deviating from correct belief. Even the excellent Reformers had but an im- perfect notion of this doctrine, though it is as simple as it is sub- lime ; and for this reason, in a great measure, that they saw around them senseless fanatics who dishonoured the Gospel, and caused un- speakable injury by the grossest misconstructions and perversions of this doctrine. It would not have been worth while, with our present purpose, to say even the little we have said on this subject, were there not so many well-meaning men of real piety, who, notwithstanding the most striking historical proof, can never prevail upon themselves to admit the Revelation to be a genuine apostolic production, and therefore entitled to a place in the canon, and thus to become a rule of faith ; because they feel that then they must in consequence CXVU1 THE REVELATION OF JOHN. admit the reign of God upon earth, in their circle of belief, which they suppose they neither can, nor ought to do. May such be led to a thorough investigation of this idea, and of all the passages of Scripture which relate thereto, that the acknowledgment of evan- gelical truth in this respect may be promoted, and its fulfilment be rendered nearer at hand ! In passing now to the consideration of the historical evidence in favour of the genuineness of the Revelation, we must again call to mind the latter days of the life of John the Evangelist. He lived, as we know with certainty, longer than any one of the other apos- tles, that is, as late as to the end of the first century. The scene of his successful labours at the close of his life was the city of Ephesus, in the vicinity of which were situated all those cities to which were directed the seven Epistles contained in the first chap- ters of the Revelation. Ephesus, moreover, was one of the great centres of business in the Roman empire, and was much frequented by Christians from all countries. It must, therefore, be admitted, that it was easy for the Ephe- sian church particularly, and indeed for the whole ancient church, to arrive at the highest degree of certainty in regard to the writings of John. In particular, there could be no uncertainty whether John had composed so peculiar, so very remarkable a production as the Revelation. We must therefore admit, that if among the fa- thers of the church in that region we met with even uncertainty in regard to its author, it would be a very suspicious circumstance ; and, on the other hand, unanimity in their conviction of the genu- ineness of the book must be a very decisive testimony in its favour. Now we meet with this last to a surprising degree. First, we have the testimony of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, in behalf of the book. This man was personally acquainted with several of the apostles, and among them with the Evangelist John. His tes- timony is therefore of the greatest consequence. It is true an at- tempt has been made to invalidate it, on the ground that only a late writer, named Andreas, attributes to Papias any knowledge of the Revelation ; but careful consideration of the principal passage re- specting Papias in Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 39), which certainly ought to be thus examined, will show that Eusebius has given a wrong representation concerning Papias in more than one respect, and every thing is in favour of the supposition, that Papias was ac- quainted with all John's writings. Eusebius is one of those fathers of the church who were very much prejudiced against the doctrine concerning the millennium, and it is on this account that he so strongly opposes Papias. Since this ancient bishop was a principal supporter of that doctrine, his testimony may on that account ap- pear partial ; and yet his close relation to John cannot have per- THE REVELATION OF JOHN. CX1X mitted him, notwithstanding all his predilection for this doctrine, to attribute to that writer a production which was not his. Justin Martyr, too, along with Papias, testifies in favour of the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse. He was, indeed, born in Palestine, but he taught in Ephesus, and there had opportunity to learn how things really were. Now, this father expressly declares the Revela- tion to have been written by the Evangelist John, one of the twelve. So, too, Melito, bishop of Sardis, one of the cities to which the Epistles in the Revelation are addressed. We cannot but pre- sume that such a man would know who was the author of a pro- duction which contained an Epistle to the church over which he presided. The same is true of Polycarp, the celebrated bishop of Smyrna, to which church, likewise, an apocalyptic Epistle is addressed. This man was an immediate disciple of the Evangelist John. Poly- carp's pupil, Irenseus, who removed from Asia Minor to the south of France, and, as has already been observed, became bishop of Lyons, gives us an account of Polycarp's relation to John, and makes use of the Revelation throughout his writings, without men- tioning even the slightest opposition to it. It is also employed as really apostolical by the western fathers, Turtullian, Cyprian, Hip- polytus, &c., without any mention of doubt as to its canonical au- thority. Still, it may be said, none of these were either learned or critical ; they found in the Revelation their favourite doctrine in regard to the kingdom of God upon earth, and therefore they readily received the book as a production of John's. In decided opposition to such remarks, we adduce the Alexandrian fathers, Clement and Origen. These were not only the most learned men of the day and the best skilled in criticism, but, in particular, were opponents of the doctrine of the Millennium; yet neither had any idea that the Revelation of John was not composed by the Evangelist of that name. They chose to get rid of the odious contents of the book by a forced interpretation, rather than by opposing the tradition of the whole church. A stronger combination of historical evidence in favour of the apostolic origin of the book is, in fact, hardly con- ceivable ! The weight of this evidence is augmented by what we know respecting those who doubted the genuineness of the book. Of this number was a presbyter of the Roman church, whose name was Grains. This man made it a set purpose to oppose the doctrine of the millennium ; and because the defenders of it naturally ap- . pealed first of all to the Revelation, he declared it spurious, without, however, presenting any historical or critical reasons for doing so. In order to degrade the Revelation, it was even referred by him to a heretic, Cerinthus, who was said to have written it in John's name. But in this he clearly evinced that he was carried away by his feel- CXX THE KEVELATION OF JOHN. ings, for no one can by any means attribute the Kevelation to an intentional deceiver, for this reason, that it would have been one object with such a man to denote with precision the person of the Evangelist, so as to cause the work to be regarded as his. This, however, has not been done, and thus we are not permitted to take any view in opposition to it, except it be that another John, and not the Evangelist, composed it. This opinion was first stated and defended in a formal manner by the learned Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, a disciple of Origen. But, as this man lived at so late a period that authentic oral tradition was no longer within his reach, no more stress is to be laid upon his doubts than upon the learned objections of more modern days. We come therefore to this result : All historical tradition is unanimous in behalf of John's composition of the Revelation. Now, in order to invalidate this decided testimony of antiquity, very striking arguments ought to be adduced ; but observe what are the reasons which prevail upon modern investigators to deny that the Evangelist John was the author of the Revelation, and then judge whether they are strong enough to countervail such testimony. In enumerating these reasons, I follow a distinguished scholar of the present day, whom I very much esteem and love as my former in- structor, although I differ entirely from, his views. I do indeed be- lieve him to be in general very impartial and unprejudiced ; but nevertheless I think him to be influenced in his judgment of the Revelation by the force of prejudices which were largely imbibed by the church, and have been widely diffused. 1 In the first place, it is urged by this learned man that John never mentions himself in the Gospel and Epistles as the author of these writings ; would he act differently then in the Apocalypse ? It is true, he says only that this circumstance is worthy of attention; but as it stands as one of his arguments, it seems to have been re- garded as of considerable importance. Of what consequence, how- ever, is such a difference in practice, since all we can say is, simply, that the author chose in this case to employ a different form from his usual one ? What writer is there who does not act as he pleases in regard to such points ? In the second place, the variation from his other writings in point of language is adduced as an argument. The fact is indispu- table. The language of the Gospel is pure Greek, smooth and ac- curate ; that of the Revelation, on the contrary, is harsh, rugged, full of inaccuracies of expression, and real grammatical mistakes, But it is not true that all difference in phraseology indicates differ- ent writers. Compare, e. g., the earliest writings of Goethe, Schil- 1 I mean Prof. De Wette, in his " Einleit. ins neue Testament" (Introd. to the N. Testament). THE REVELATION OF JOHN. CXX1 ler, Herder, with the latest productions of the same authors. Es- pecially take an author who attempts to write in a foreign lan- guage ; must not his first essays be of a totally different character from his later ones ? He has not complete mastery of the lan- guage ; he struggles not only with the sense, but with the form ; and this must necessarily make the phraseology even of the most practised intellect somewhat cumbrous. This is exactly the case with John's Revelation. It was his earliest production in the Greek language, occasioned by the fearful occurrences during Nero's perse- cution. These cast the sympathizing mind of the beloved disciple of Jesus into deep meditation, during which the spirit of prophecy showed him the future fortunes of the church, and its final conquest over Judaism and heathenism. It was, therefore, composed some twenty years earlier than the Gospel and Epistles seem to have been written, and in a language which to John, a native of Palestine, must have been a foreign one. Now, the Revelation appears ex- actly like the production of a man who had not yet acquired the requisite skill in the Greek language, and as its internal character- istics, likewise, show that it was written in the early part of John's life, before Jerusalem was destroyed, it is in fact impossible to see how one can ascribe importance to this circumstance of the differ- ence of style, in opposition to the tradition that the Evangelist John was the author of the production ; the rather as there is undeniably very much in the language which bears close affinity to those writ- ings that are admitted to be John's. The same may be said of the third observation, that the style of the Revelation is in the following respect very unlike that which we find in the Gospel and Epistles, viz., that the former exhibits a lively creative fancy, while, in the latter, quiet, deep feeling predominates. In regard to this remark, which likewise is correct, we are to con- sider, first, that the same individual in different stages of mental development will make use of different styles of expression. The earlier works of the same writer are accordingly more ardent, more imaginative than his later. Moreover, the imagery in the Revela- tion is not by any means to be regarded as the arbitrary production of a rich fancy, but rather as actual appearances to John's mind from the operation of the divine Spirit within him. I admit that John would not have been selected as the medium of these commu- nications of the Spirit, had there not been in his whole organization a special adaptation for such impressions ; but still, susceptibility to them is not the same as positive productive fancy. Finally, it is Hot to be forgotten in this view, that John's other writings are of a more historical or else purely didactic nature ; while, on the other hand, the Revelation is a prophetic production. It would therefore CXX11 THE REVELATION OF JOHN. be totally unnatural that the same style should be observable in the Apocalypse as in John's other writings. The only remaining point alleged in confirmation of the differ- ence between the Revelation and other writings of John is, that they exhibit a totally different doctrinal aspect. In particular, stress is laid on this circumstance, that in the Gospel nothing at all is found of what forms the main topic of the Apocalypse, viz., the expecta- tion of a visible coming of our Lord, and the establishment of his kingdom upon earth. Moreover, all that is said in the Revelation respecting good and bad angels is of a more Jewish cast, we are told, than we should expect John's views to have been, from examining his other writings. It would appear that, if this be really so, it is a reason of some weight against the genuineness of the book ; for we cannot suppose the apostles to have altered their doctrinal views, and, plainly, difference in the character of the writings could not affect the doctrine, as both in historical and prophetical productions there must exist the same fundamental views on the part of the writer. Now, the remark is indisputably correct, but the true reason of the fact has been misapprehended. For, first, the same differ- ence which is exhibited between the Gospel of John and the Apoca- lypse, also appears, on comparison, between the Gospel of John and the first three Gospels. These latter, like the Revelation, present many doctrines and views agreeable to the Jews, particularly the visible coming of our Lord to assume his kingdom upon earth ; while nothing of all this is touched upon by the Gospel of John, notwith- standing there was ample occasion for doing so. It does not thence follow, however, that either John or the others err in representing the discourses of Jesus Christ, since the same person may have spoken sometimes spiritually, as in John's discourses, and some- times in a Judaizing manner, as according to the other Evangelists. The correct solution of this difficulty is to be sought solely in the special purpose of the Gospel of John, with which the first Epistle stands in such intimate connection that it is not strange it should partake of the same character. The two other Epistles are too short to be here taken into consideration. For above (in the third chap- ter in speaking of the Gospel of John), it was observed, that this Evangelist had a particular class of persons in view in his work, viz., men similar to the later Gnostics, and who in certain views coincided with them perfectly. In particular, they, like the Gnostics, specu- lated on Divine things in a peculiar manner, and sought to idealize the real facts in the history of Jesus, more than the true apostolic doctrine permitted. These men, among whom were many very sen- sible and well-meaning persons, were those whom John had particu- larly in view in the composition of his Gospel. With apostolic wisdom he avoided in this work every thing which could offend the CONCLUSION. CXXU1 prejudices of these persons. Many Jewish ideas, which had a very good and genuine foundation, and, according to the first Gospels, were expressed by the Saviour himself, he kept back, becoming in a manner a Gnostic to the Gnostics, without doing the least injury, however, to the cause of truth. He depicted Christianity, there- fore, to their minds, just as they could most easily comprehend it, convinced that when once they had seized this idea, they would gradually learn to understand it thoroughly. If, now, we adhere steadfastly to this point of view, it will ap- pear perfectly intelligible, how the same John who wrote thus in the Gospel, should appear to express himself so differently in the Eevelation, in the composition of which no such reference existed ; though still he was always governed by the same doctrinal views at every period of his life. And thus we must declare, that no one of these reasons is calculated to disturb us in regard to the correctness and truth of the tradition of the first centuries after Christ. If the repugnance which is felt towards the contents of the Apocalypse be only conquered, men will soon cease to rate so highly the reasons which are adduced against its apostolic origin, and to think so little of the importance of the unanimous tradition of antiquity. And that this may soon happen is the more to be wished, as the progres- sive development of the church makes the Kevelation more and more important in testing what is now occurring among Christians, and what awaits them in the immediate future ! CONCLUSION. ' < 4 HAVING thus passed through the entire series of the writings of the New Testament, taking notice of the critical questions in regard to them, we will now, for the sake of convenience, present a com- pendious view of the results at which we have arrived. We find then most, and the most important, of the writings in the canon of the New Testament, so unanimously acknowledged in ancient times, and so universally made use of as apostolical in later days, that there cannot be the least doubt in regard to them. They are on this account denominated Homologoumena, universally-ac- knowledged writings, and form the main sources of the doctrine and history of the Christian church. Among these Homologoumena, as is stated by Eusabius so curly as the commencement of the fourth century, were the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thir- teen Pauline Epistles, the first Epistle of Peter, and the first of John. If we attend only to the voice of Christian antiquity, as Eusobius correctly observes, the Apocalypse also does in reality be- CXX1V CONCLUSION. long among the Homologoumena. But the fortune of this book has been so peculiar, that some have not even been willing to class it among the Antilegomena, but have ranked it with the writings which are of a profane character, and are to be utterly rejected. Eusebius was therefore in great perplexity to what class he could properly assign the Kevelation. As to the Epistle to the Hebrews, its author is unknown, merely ; its genuineness is not disputed. It belongs, therefore, to the class of the Antilegomena only so far as this, that its position in the canon was disputed ; the relation of the author to the Apostle Paul not being unanimously acknowledged in the church. Properly, the class of the Antilegomena among the New Testa- ment writings comprehends the two smaller Epistles of John, the Epistles of James and Jude, and the second Epistle of Peter. These five books were never universally acknowledged and used in the ancient church. More recent investigation has decided in favour of the first three. The two smaller Epistles of John are certainly apostolical, and from the author of the Gospel of John ; that of James was not, indeed, written by one of the twelve, but by a brother of our Lord, who held such a prominent rank in the ancient church as placed him, like Paul, fully on a level with the apostles. As to the two writings last in the list, however, it appears justly somewhat doubtful whether they are productions of the days of the apostles. The Epistle of Jude is, indeed, certainly genuine, but as certainly not apostolical ; and, as history attributes to this brother of our Lord no very prominent station or agency, the Epistle seems not properly to belong to the canon. It can be supported only by the second Epistle of Peter, which is not itself certainly of apostoli- cal origin. For, in regard to the latter, a consideration of the cir- cumstances makes it impossible to establish its genuineness objec- tively on valid grounds, although it may be made subjectively probable. These results of the most careful critical investigation of the New Testament are very satisfactory. For, if we could wish that the genuineness and canonical character of the Antilegomena might be established by as valid arguments as we can adduce in behalf of the Homologoumena, still it must be admitted that those books upon which some suspicion rests, are the very books, of all the New Testa- ment writings, with which we can most easily dispense. The chief and best of these writings are the very ones whose genuineness and apostolic authority are certified as strongly as possible. If, now, we inquire into the relation between the external his- torical genuineness of the books of the New Testament, and their internal efficacy and determinate power over the faith and life of the individual, and of the whole community of Christians, it is cer- CONCLUSION. CXXV tainly undeniable, that the former by itself decides nothing in favour of the latter ; but still, on account of the circumstances of the church, demonstration of such genuineness is by no means unim- portant or indifferent. It is clear that we may regard the writings of another religious system, the Zend-Avesta of the Parsees, or the Koran of the Mahometans, as genuine, and as having proceeded from the immediate circle of adherents which the founder of that system of religion possessed, without thereby attributing to it any internal efficacy and determining power over the heart and life. But it cannot be said that a conviction of the genuineness of the apostolical origin of the writings of the New Testament, likewise, is a matter of indifference. It is rather of great consequence in its connection with the church, i. e., the great community founded by our Saviour, and actuated and sustained by his Spirit. You may prove the genuineness of the writings of the New Testament to him who is not within the pale of the church, or under its spiritual in- fluence, and he may even acknowledge it upon incontestible histori- cal grounds ; but, as Christ, and his apostles themselves, are of no consequence in relation to his internal life, this proof has no more effect upon his faith or his life, than is produced upon those of the scholar who declares the Zend-Avesta to be a genuine work of Zo- roaster. Far otherwise is it with him who lives in the bosom of the Christian church. Here he cannot completely withdraw himself from the influence of the Spirit of Christ, which operates upon his heart from his earliest youth ; he feels himself spiritually affected, and in a manner constrained by it. It is true that sinful man very often strives against the influence of the Holy Spirit, it being trou- blesome to him, because it does not permit him to continue sinning so freely and peaceably as he could wish. In such case he seeks to obtain plausible grounds on which he may evade the force of the Spirit's influence. One such plausible ground is often presented by the supposition that the writings of the New Testament are spuri- ous, whereby the extraordinary character of our Saviour, with the sublime impression he made on the hearts of men, is encompassed with doubt, and thus its effect is diminished. To members of the church of Christ, therefore, a firm conviction that the Scriptures are genuine, is of the highest consequence ; the opposite opinion, yea, uncertainty merely, in regard to the character of the sacred writings, is ordinarily the natural concomitant of sin. Such a sentiment hin- ders the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, which manifests itself, in a manner not to be mistaken, to every simple, plain mind, on perusal of the Holy Scriptures, but exhibits its full strength only when the heart feels a quiet faith, undisturbed by any doubt. Hence the conversion of many has taken rise from their acknowledgment of the genuineness of the New Testament writings ; and moreover, the CXXV1 CONCLUSION. apostacy of many from the truth has arisen out of the circumstance that they denied the authenticity of these books. We may there- fore say, that the knowledge of the genuineness of the writings of the New Testament is of essential efficacy where the influence of the Spirit of God, and a susceptibility to its operations exist in any degree. To him who has already turned aside entirely from the truth, and who resists it with an unfriendly mind, a conviction of the genuineness of these books will be of little use, unless his opposition be first broken by the power of grace. To him who is converted, born again, the sure conviction of their genuineness will always be a pleasing concomitant of grace, and will excite his gratitude ; but, as he has experienced in his heart the divine power which dwells in the Scriptures, the testimony of the Holy Spirit will always be the pro- per foundation of his faith, which would support him even though he had no historical proofs in behalf of the sacred books. Persons, however, who have neither experienced a perfect change of heart and mind, nor are actuated by a positively hostile spirit, but ardently desire the former, though they are often assailed by doubts and un- certainties, will find in the firm historical foundation of Scripture something on which they may lean at first, and from which they may then be gradually led to the full knowledge of salvation. For, if it be only admitted that such a life as that which the Scriptures represent our Saviour's to have been was really spent, that such words as they communicate to us from him were really spoken, the obvious question is, Whence came such a phenomenon ? What is its import to the world ? to me ? But, it may here be asked, if the case is thus, how happens it that God has permitted many plausible objections to exist against the writings of the New Testament, and that some cannot even be freed wholly from suspicion ? Would it not have been more consist- ent with the purpose of the Scriptures, had all the books been sup- ported by so numerous and so completely incontestible testimonies, that not even a doubt concerning them could ever have entered any one's mind ? It may indeed seem so to short-sighted man. But his desires would not stop here, they would reach still further. He would wish to have a Bible without various readings, a biblical his- tory free from the slightest variations, in short, Jehovah himself em- bodied in the letter of the word. The living God, who is eternal wisdom and love, has not thought any thing of this kind suitable for mankind ; otherwise he would undoubtedly have effected it for their benefit ; and the reasons why he has not we may at least con- jecture, even with our weak powers. On the one hand, it would have become easier for man to confound the word and the Spirit dwelling in it with the letter ; for, even, as the case now is, this mistake has not been entirely avoided, from the want of spirituality CONCLUSION. CXXVU in many men. On the other hand, the guilt of many persons would have been augmented, since they now have at least plausible reasons for their opposition to the truth, but in the other case would have had no such extenuation, and still would have retained their hos- tility to God's word. We may therefore declare, that the character of Scripture, in this respect likewise, corresponds most perfectly with the necessities of human nature, as well as with the designs of God, notwithstanding all its apparent imperfections and defici- encies. The observations we have here made in conclusion are, moreover, such as are best suited to present the correct view concerning the peculiar character of the Old Testament in the light of criticism. For this portion of God's word has so*few historical evidences in its favour, excepting those comprehended within its own compass, that it is impossible to frame such an argument for the genuineness of its books ad we are able to exhibit in behalf of the New Testament. This want of evidence proceeds in part from the very great antiquity of the writings of the Old Testament, which were almost all com- posed before there existed any literature among the Greeks, and before the Romans were so much as known by name ; and in part, also, from the state of seclusion which the nations of the old world, generally, and particularly the Jews, always maintained. The Per- sians, Syrians, Egyptians, knew scarce any thing of the literature of the Hebrews ; and, had they even been acquainted with it, the circumstance would have been of little advantage to us, as we have but few writings of a date anterior to the time of Christ which originated with these nations. In these few, moreover, we find hardly any mention of the Jew T s and their productions. Hence, in investigating the earliest writings of the Old Testament, the critic has no other resource than a careful examination of the contents of the books themselves, and a comparison of them with each other. Were this examination and comparison invariably conducted with a believing and humble disposition, not the slightest objection could be made, and we might quietly await the results of such a proce- dure ; but, when the minds of investigators deviate from the proper spirit and disposition, it is very evident how easily such an inquiry, which is in its nature somewhat uncertain and precarious, may lead to pernicious results. Every one will, in such a case, determine the matter according to his subjective ideas and views, without obtaining any objective grounds of judgment from investigation. If we only look at the actual state of the matter, entirely aside from the holy character of the book, we shall be convinced that such a course of investigation could hardly afford any useful result, even with the best intentions. A book is presented to us, which contains the relics of a nation's literature during a period of 1200 years. We CXXV111 CONCLUSION. derive all that we can know of the history, the manners, the special circumstances of this people, excepting a few points, from this book alone. Thus it is at once the object and the norm of investigation. Since, moreover, in regard to many of the writings in it we have no statement as to their author and the time of their composition, the investigation of these writings cannot hut have always a character of uncertainty. If we were only familiarly acquainted with the history of a single nation in close vicinity to the Jews, and found in its literature constant reference to the Jewish writings, we might then, by drawing a parallel, communicate more stability to the criticism of the Old Testament, but we have no such advantage, and must content ourselves with individual notices, which have come down to us from the most ancient times of the nations with which the Jews came in contact. It was not till the time of Alex- ander the Great, about 300 years B. C., that the Jews, with their literature, became known to the Greeks, through whom we have received much important information in regard to the Old Testa- ment. For, as the Jews, after that period, when they fell under Greek dominion, made themselves acquainted with the Greek liter- ature, and to some extent themselves wrote in Greek, as e. g., the celebrated Jewish writers, Josephus and Philo, so, on the other hand, the Greeks began to take an interest in the Jews and their religious institutions. From this mixture of Hebrew and Greek life proceeded the celebrated Greek Version of the Seventy. This, according to the account of the ancients, was executed under the Egyptian monarch Ptolemy Philadeljphus, at the instance of the learned Demetrius Phalereus, about the year 270 B. C. It is true, the Old Testament was not probably translated all at once, but, at any rate, even according to the most recent opinion, the Old Testa- ment was entirely translated into Greeek when Jesus Sirach was composed, i. e., about the year 130 B. C. Consequently, it is placed beyond a doubt that the whole Old Testament, as we have it, exist- ed in Palestine in the Hebrew language long before the time of Christ and his Apostles, and in a Greek version in the other countries of the Koman Empire, particularly in Egpyt, where there resided so large a number of Jews, and they possessed so great privileges, that they had even built a temple in the city of Leontopolis in close imitation of that at Jerusalem. In Egypt the collection of the Apocryphal books likewise, which were confessedly written in Greek, was inserted in the canon of the Old Testament, which was spread abroad by the version of the seventy interpreters, and from this version they were introduced into the Latin church-version (the so- called Vulgate}, thus obtaining the same authority as the writings of the Old Testament, which authority they possess at the present day in the Catholic church. As, however, they are not expressly CONCLUSION. CXXlX cited in the New Testament, 1 and are wholly wanting in the He- brew canon of the Old Testament, Luther rightly separated them from the rest, but appended them to the 'books of the Old Testa- ment, as " Writings not to be equally esteemed with Holy Writ, but still profitable and excellent for perusal." The Reformed Church, however, has gone still farther, and dissevered them entirely from the collection of sacred books, in order to prevent them from being confounded with the inspired word. Hence arose this great evil, that the historical connection between the Old and New Tes- tament, which is so well exhibited in the narrative writings of the Apocrypha, was totally sundered ; and this connection is by no means a matter of indifference to believers, because it is only through it that God's providence towards his people can be regarded in the light of an united whole. Hence it would seem best to re- tain the apocryphal writings along with the Sacred Scriptures, designating, indeed, the distinction between them and the canonical books. Thus much, then, according to these statements, we know cer- tainly from historical testimony, that the Old Testament, as we now have it, existed more .than a century before Christ. It is true the learned would be gratified to know a great deal more respecting the formation of the canon of the Old Testament, respecting the authors of the individual writings, &c. But, in view merely of the relation of the Old Testament to the faith of the present day, the knowledge that the Old Testament was in a complete collected form before the time of Christ, is sufficient to afford us a firm conviction of the gen- uineness and importance of its books. Now, that the existing Old Testament was generally diffused and in use among the Jews, is at- tested by the Jewish writers of the apostolic times, who employed the Greek language in their writings. Philo, in Egypt, and Jose- pirns, in Palestine, make use of the Old Testament throughout their works, thereby confirming the custom of the New Testament, which also everywhere refers to the Old Testament. The manner in which the Old Testament is cited by the New, and the definite declara- tions in regard to the former which are contained in the latter, are decisive as to the faith of Christians of the present day. These afford us more than the mere assurance that the books of the Old Testament are authentic ; this might be admitted, without the slightest acknowledgment of the value of the writings, since the most wretched and even hurtful productions may be perfectly genuine. They declare in the most precise manner the Divine character of these books, which of course presupposes their genuineness, for it is 1 Allusions to them are pointed out by Steir in his " Andeutungen fiir Glaubwtir- dige Schrifterklarung" (or Hints towards the proper interpretation of the Scriptures), p. 486, seq. VOL. I. 9 CXXX CONCLUSION. very evident that no writings could be Divine which originated in deceit and imposture. In the first place, we find in the New Testament citations from almost all the writings in the Old Testament. 1 The principal books, as, e. g., the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Prophet Isaiah, are cited very often, and even those less important are referred to here and there in the New Testament. A very few are entirely neglected ;' of this number, in particular, is Solomon's Song, which is nowhere cited in all the New Testament. This circumstance is certainly not accidental. Perhaps it is not too much to conclude, that the books of the Old Testament which are not at all mentioned in the New, should be regarded very much as the so-called deutero-canonical books of the New Testament ; though the circumstance that they are not cited in the New Testament can be nowise objected against their genuineness, any-more than the position of a New Testament book among the Antilegomena can be considered as a proof of its spuriousness. These non-cited books of the Old Testament, with the exception of the three minor prophets, probably present some- thing like a transition to the apocryphal books. At all events, the fact that these books are nowhere mentioned in the New Testament should inculcate upon us caution in making use of them. Of more importance than the citations, are such passages of the New Testament as contain decisive declarations respecting the Old Testament as a whole. These occur particularly in the discourses of our Lord himslf. Jesus calls the law (Matth. v. 17 seq.) eternal, imperishable. Heaven and earth, he says, shall pass away, but not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away till all be fulfilled. In a similar manner, in Luke xxiv. 44, prophecy concerning Christ is re- presented as something running through the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms, and as necessary to be fulfilled. In Luke xvi. 17, also, all created things (heaven, and earth), it is said, will sooner and more easily pass away than the Law and the Prophets. Thus a lofty divine character is clearly claimed in behalf of the Old Testament. It may, indeed, be observed on the contrary, that, in the passages referred to, allusion is made, not to the whole Old Testament, but only to particular books, the Mosaic law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. But, first, it is to be noticed, that the expression, Law, or Law and Prophets, stands frequently for the whole Old Testament, just as Gospel stands for the whole New 1 The Old Testament is expressly cited in the New more than four hundred times, and in a much larger number of places there are allusions to the Old Testament. 2 The Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Solomon's Song, as also the minor Prophets, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah. It is most proper, however, to consider the twelve Prophets as one work; and then the fact that these three are not cited loses its force. But in regard to other books of the Old Testament the circum- stance that they are not cited is not unimportant. CONCLUSION. CXXX1 Testament. Moreover, the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, was the usual division of the books of the Old Testament among the Jews. The first part of the Hebrew Old Testament comprehends the five books of Moses, the second part falls into two sub-divisions, first the historical writings, the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and, secondly, the three larger and 12 minor Prophets. In the third part (which in Luke xxiv. 44, is termed Psalms, from the principal book which it contains), belong moreover, besides the Psalms, the book of Job, the writings of Solomon, the book of Daniel, and some later historical books, and, lastly, the book of Chronicles. But entirely aside from this Jewish division of the Old Testament, the connection of these passages with the citations clearly shows, that they are intended to refer to the whole Old Tes- tament. The citations in the New Testament from the Old are not adduced as mere confirmation, drawn from human productions of great value, but as irrefragable proofs from sacred books. This power of proof could have belonged to them only from the fact that they were not bare compositions of human wisdom, but those of men who were moved by the Holy Ghost. (Compare 2 Pet. i. 20, 21.) Now, as citations from all the principal writings of the Old Testament occur in the New, the general declarations we have mentioned must of course refer to all the writings of the Old Testa- ment, so as to attribute to them a common character, viz., that of a divine origin. To this it is to be added, that throughout Scripture there runs the doctrine of a deep, essential connection between the Old and New Testaments. As the Old Testament is always pointing onward to the New, so the latter is always pointing backward to the Old, as its necessary precedent. Consequently, both alike bear the charac- ter of a divine revelation ; only, this revelation manifests itself in a gradual development. In the Old Testament it appears in its com- mencement as the seed of the subsequent plant ; in the New Testa- ment the living plant itself is exhibited. On account of this relation, there cannot be any thing in the Old Testament specifically different from what is to be found in the New Testament ; only, the form of presenting the same thing is at one time more or less plain and direct than at another. These declarations of the New Testament in regard to the Old are, to Christians, not mere private assertions of wise, good, and pious men, such as many in our day are in the habit of supposing Jesus and his apostles to have been ; they exhibit, rather, authentic information respecting the real character of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament. Christ, as the Son of the living God, as abso- lute truth itself, who alone knew the Father, and, as the source of all real revelation from him, can have made such declarations con- CXXX11 CONCLUSION. cerning the writings of the Old Testament, only with the strictest sincerity (as is the case with every thing he did or said), and must have designed that they should be a rule to his church, since his whole life on earth had but one single aim, that of developing the heavenly and eternal to the created world. Thus, had Jesus at- tributed the character of eternity to a production to which it by no means belonged, he would have counteracted his own sole purpose. The same is true of the apostles, who, in that respect to which our attention is now directed, are to be considered as upon a level with Christ himself ; they being pure organs of the mind of Christ ; though, in themselves considered, they were but sinful men, and desired to be so regarded. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit they acknowledged the eternal character of the Old Testament, and their declarations on this point are not (any more than those of our Lord himself) mere subjective, private statements, they are rather authentic accounts respecting the character of this part of Holy Writ. In considering the force of the apostolic declarations concern- ing the authority of the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament, we are to regard, not merely the citations of individual passages from it, or general statements respecting its authors, such as their being at one time represented as moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Pet. i. 21), and at another Holy Scripture being called instruction unto salva- tion (2 Tim. iii. 15), which, as the New Testament was not then collected, can refer only to the Old ; but we are especially to ob- serve the manner in which the citations are adduced from the Old Testament. This is most remarkable in the Epistle to the Hebrews, although similar passages also occur in the Gospels and other books of the New Testament. In this remarkable Epistle, God or the Holy Ghost is constantly named as the speaker, in the passages which are adduced from the Old Testament ; and this not only in regard to those which are accompanied in the Old Testament by the expression, " God said," but also to those in which some man speaks, for instance David, as author of a Psalm. Herein is clearly exhib- ited the view of the author in relation to the Old Testament and the writers of it. He considered that God was, by his Holy Spirit, the living agent and speaker in them all, so that, consequently, the Holy Scriptures were to him purely a work of God, although brought forward by men. That the genuineness of these writings was equally certain to him, follows of course, because that which is divine, as has been before remarked, can never appear in the form of a forgery. It is true, however, that such a proof in behalf of the Old Testa- ment is valid only for him who has become convinced, by living ex- perience, of the truth of God in Christ and the infallibility of the Spirit which actuated his disciples. Where this truth and infalli- CONCLUSION. CXXX111 bility are either flatly denied, or even merely doubted, the observa- tions we have made may be of no weight. For such persons we can- not frame an argument in behalf of the Old Testament which shall be valid against all objections. As to us who live according to Christ, and to whom the power of his Spirit is accessible, every thing must radiate from the centre of the New Testament scenes, viz., the Saviour himself. The conviction of his eternal power and Godhead establishes the Old Testament retrospectively, and also establishes the New Testament prospectively, by the promise of his Spirit, which should bring all those things which he had said to his disci- ples to their remembrance. On this conviction the assurance of the genuineness and divinity of Scripture forever rests, and much more securely, than upon any external historical proofs ; for it wholly takes away the possibility of an attack in any quarter on the part of human sophistry, and leaves assurance safe in the unassailable sanctuary of our interior life. INTRODUCTION, 1. ON THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPEL-COLLECTION.* As the revelations of God to man assume two principal forms viz., the Law and the Gospel ; so, the Scriptures are divided into two parts of which the first relates to God's covenant with man in the law ; the second, to the covenant in grace. Since the living Word of God the eternal cause of these ever-binding covenants lives in those writings which refer to Hhe covenants, the writings themselves have been denominated Old and New Covenants (rma= diaO/iKT].^ The Vulgate renders it Testarnentum. Compare 2 Cor. iii. 14). It is to the writings of the New Testament that we here direct our attention ; these always, however, necessarily presuppose the Old Testament. The New Testament springs from the Old, as the tree from its root ; while the Old appears perfected in the New. (Matth. v. 17.) We do not find the New Testament, as a collected whole, till towards the end of the fourth century. In the course of this century three smaller collections were united into one viz., the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, and the general Epistles, together with some more isolated writings, which form the transi- tions and the conclusion viz., the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse. The origin of the first of these smaller collections, the evayye/U- KOV, chiefly claims our attention. The collecting of our four canoni- cal Gospels is lost in the remotest Christian antiquity. As far back as the historical records of the church extend, we find that collection everywhere in use : not only in every quarter of the world/ but also in every division of the church, whether orthodox or schis- * [Evangeliensammlung is the word in the original, which expresses a collection of the Gospels into one volume, forming a subdivision of the whole New Testament.] Tr. f The word fiiaOrJKij occurs, however, in the New Testament (Acts iii. 25; Gal. iii. 15 ; Heb. ix. 16), also in the sense of " Testament," " leaving an inheritance to children." 136 INTRODUCTION. matic, and even among heathen writers, as Celsus, it was known, used, and respected.* It is true, that many heretics, as Marcion, the Jewish Christians, and others, did not use the Gospel-collec- tion, but only one or other of the Gospels ; the collection, however, was known to them, and they refrained from its use on the sole ground that, in accordance with their views, they did not helieve themselves justified in regarding the writers as authorities in matters of faith."}* This leads necessarily to the supposition of a very early origin of the Gospel-collection, of which, however, we have no definite information. Whether it was the work of an indi- vidual, or of a single church, or of a council, remains uncertain. The last supposition is the most unlikely, since we have no account whatever of church assemblies before the middle of the second cen- tury. But it is very possible that some eminent man, or an influ- ential church, might have formed the collection. Yet there is no historical trace of such a fact extant ; and the universal dissemina- tion of the collection, appearing, as it does, even in the first half of the second century, seems to point to another -mode of forma- tion. For, starting with the assumption, that the four Gospels are genuine, and with the further assumption (which we must do, since there is no credible account whatever of other apostolical Gospels), that these four alone are the work of apostles, or enjoy apostolical sanction, we .do not then need to suppose a definite time, or a de- finite place, or any special occasion, in order to explain the origin of the collection of the Gospels ; but we may conceive that it was made in different places at the same time. The lively intercourse among the ancient Christian congregations led them to distribute, as quickly as possible, those Gospel histories which had apostolical authority in their favour, as precious gifts bequeathed to the church of Christ ; and, as only these four could shew credible evidence of being genuine apostolical writings, they were conse- quently united into one collection. Gradually, as they came into circulation in the church, they were deposited in the church archives, which must have been early formed by the presbyters and bishops, and were immediately multiplied by copying. If, then, we suppose likewise (and history supplies no ground of objection to the sup- position), that the evangelists wrote in the order in which the Gos- pels are arranged in the canon, not only is their general dissemina- tion accounted for, but also the circumstance, that we discover only slight traces of the existence of any arrangement different from the * For a fuller discussion of this point, see the Author's work : Die Aechtheit der Evangelien, aus der Geschichte der zwei ersten Jahrhunderte erwiesen. Konigsberg, 1823, 8vo, S. 261, ff. f E. g. y Marcion, the Gnostic, believed St. Matthew, and even St. John, to be Judai- zere. (See the Author's work, ut supra, S. 359, ff.) INTRODUCTION. 137 present* a circumstance which, apart from the above supposition might favour the opinion, that the collection had been arranged in this order by some particular individual or church ; since, other- wise, its contemporaneous formation in different places, would almost inevitably have produced variations in the arrangement, es- pecially variations so natural as the placing of John and Mat- thew together. 2. ON THE CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL-COLLECTION. The ancient church justly regarded the Gospel-collection as a unity, on which account they call it simply evayy&iov [glad tidings], or evayyeXiKovJi as containing, in its portraiture of the life, labors, and passion of Jesus, the glad tidings of Him who had appeared as the Saviour of the world. See Iren. adv. haer. i. 17, 29, iii. 11. The uniting into a whole of these four authentic records of the Saviour's life, they regarded as not merely accidental. They recog- nised in their connexion, as in the general formation and arrange- ment of the Scriptures, a higher necessity. The number of the Gospels could have been no more changed than their position without disturbing the harmony of the whole. Irenceus (ut sup. iii. 11, p. 221, Ed. Grabe), therefore, very appropriately calls the Gospel-collection a evayyekiov TErpdiJ.opQov, four-formed gospel, and describes it as a picture, portraying the same sublime object from different aspects. The relation of the Gospels to each other, and to the remaining books of the New Testament, proves the correctness of this opinion. The Gospels supplement each other alike in their accounts of the Kedeemer's life, and their mode of portraiture. The life of Jesus presented itself in so manifold a variety of aspects ; his discourses poured upon his disciples so rich a stream of life, that any single individual was utterly incapable of apprehending the overwhelming fulness of his character. In him were disclosed elements which no single set of human faculties * Cod. D. and also the Gothic translation, place, for instance, the Gospel of St. John immediately after that of St. Matthew, evidently in order to separate the two apostolical works from those of the helpers of the apostles. See Hug. Introduction to the New Test- ament, p. 309 (Fosdick's Translation), and the Postscripts to the Gospels in Schulz' edi- tion. f The New Testament recognizes the proper signification only of the word evayyeXiov = 5"H 'B2 chiefly in the special reference to the joyful tidings of the Messiah's actual ap- pearance. A secondary signification, in conformity to which the writings that sketch the notions of the Messiah are called eiiayye'Aia, has been incorrectly given to the word in such passages as Rom. ii. 16; x. 16. The titles of our Gospels are of later origin; more- over, in them we should refer the term e vayy&iov simply to the contents, not to the book. In classical use, evayye/.iov signifies likewise a reward for a piece of good news, a pre- sent to one who brings good news. (See Liddell and Scott's Lex. s. v.) 138 INTRODUCTION. was adequate to grasp ; hence there were needed several minds, which, as mirrors, caught the rays that proceeded from him, as from the Sun of the spiritual world, and reflected the same image in different directions. These varied conceptions of our Lord in his union of divine and human attributes, are contained in the Gospels, and must be blended together, to form a perfect delineation of Christ. But for God's providential arrangement, therefore, by which several persons, and those very different, narrated the life of Jesus, either his human and natural, or his divine and supernatural, conduct would be presented to us less carefully conceived, according as we were without the one or the other aspect of this grand fourfold picture. But much as this view of the relation of the Gospels to each other must approve itself to every one who feels that he cannot as- cribe the development of the church, and especially the formation of the Scriptures, to chance, it is yet difficult, in following out that view, to define accurately the character of each individual Gospel a difficulty which certainly by no means leads to the rejection of the fundamental view, but rather invites to deeper research into the nature of the Gospels. That Matthew has rather seized the human, and John the divine element in the character of Jesus is too evident to be overlooked. In Matthew, we see the human element exalted to the divine ; in John, the descent of the divine to the human. It is more difficult to assign a definite position to Mark and Luke, since both stand as intermediate between the other two Gospels, as the extremes. The comparison of the Gospels with the prevalent tendencies in the ancient church, is our best guide. That is to say, as Matthew unquestionably represents the Judaistic, and St. John the Gnostic, or speculative and mystical element, so far as both are to some extent true, so Mark and Luke appear to represent the peculiar tendencies of the heathen Christians, the former perhaps more in the Roman, the latter more in the Greek, form. In Mark, however, the least of what is peculiar is discernible ; yet, that it is not altogether wanting, is evident from the circumstance, that one party in the early church attached themselves specially to this Gospel. (On the party itself, however, rests an impenetrable obscurity. See the Author's Geschichte der Aechtheit der Evang. S. 96, if). As, then, the Gospels, in the manner referred to, represent different tenden- cies of the early church, which, under other names and forms, belong to every period ; so they correspond to the progressive developments of the inner life, which can never proceed in its growth from the un- derstanding of John downwards to Matthew, but, always upwards, from Matthew to John. Further, if we consider the Gospel-collection in its relation to the entire New Testament, it appears plainly as the basis of the INTRODUCTION. 139 whole. In the Pauline Epistles, the Gospel is unfolded in its separ- ate branches in its doctrinal and practical bearing ; the general epistles continue the development of what is contained in its germ in the Gospels, and finally in vital union with them as the root and branches, the fulness of New Testament life blossoms forth in the prophetic strains of the Apocalypse. The whole New Testament, therefore, like a living plant, has a complete and organic unity. The beginning and the end are the most difficult to understand, because there the thoughts appear in the most succinct form. Unless in- ward experience be altogether wanting, it is best to begin the deeper study of the New Testament with the Epistle to the Romans, since that document purposely expounds at length the peculiar features of the Gospel. After an accurate investigation of this important epis- tle, much that is expressed more concisely and darkly in other por- tions of the New Testament, may be easily understood. But, as the whole New Testament is the subject of our labours, we fol- low the order of the books as there given, so as not to interfere with the wishes and views of any. 3. ON THE AFFINITY OF THE FIEST THREE GOSPELS. The investigation of the difficult problem of the striking affinity of the first three Gospels, which appears interrupted by variations just as striking, cannot, of course, be carried out in this place, any more than a history of the attempts to solve that problem : both belong to the Introduction to the Canonical Books of the New Testament, properly so called, where the subjects of the pre- ceding paragraphs also meet with a more copious discussion. A commentator, however, owes to his readers an account of the way in which he looks upon this remarkable phenomenon, since the view taken of very many passages is determined by his opinion concern- ing the origin of the Gospels. I shall therefore endeavour here to give briefly the results of my inquiries. The two Gospels of Matthew and Luke appear to me to have been composed quite independently Matthew's principally from his own experience and oral tradition ; Luke's principally from shorter written memoirs (diegeses)* which he edited. That which is found common to both Gospels may, in great part, be accounted for on the supposition of an affinity in the sources of information,f both oral and written, which the authors used independently f, Luke i. 1.] Tr. \ The copious narrative of the journey, contained in Luke ix. 51 xviii. 14, which is peculiar to him, is probably to be regarded as a dieyesis of that sort, edited by St. Luke. See on this subject, Sckleiermacher, iiber die Schiften des Lucas, S. 158, ffi 140 INTRODUCTION. of each other. In another respect, however, the supposition of their having used kindred sources of information, does not ap- pear sufficient to account for the affinity subsisting between them. I do not indeed, by any means, discover a uniformity in the general structure of the two works, and especially not in the alleged fact, that the scene of Christ's history, up to his last journey, is confined to Galilee ; for in the general plan there are wide differ- ences, and the above-mentioned limitation of our Saviour's min- istry to Galilee, in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, is totally destitute of proof, as it depends not on positive reasons, but merely on the omission of journeys to the feasts, and the want of chrono- logical and topographical notices. Still, there is, in many places, so close a verbal coincidence between Matthew and Luke, that we can hardly maintain that both, in such places also, wrote altogether independently of each other, or only used kindred sources of infor- mation. Compare Matth. iii. 7-10, with Luke iii. 7-9 ; Matth. vii. 3-5, with Luke vi. 41, 42 ; Matth. vii. 7-11, with Luke xi. 9-13 ; Matth. viii. 9, with Luke vii. 8 ; Matth. viii. 19-22, with Luke ix. 57-60 ; Matth. ix. 5, 6, with Luke v. 23, 24 ; Matth. ix. 37, 38, with Luke x. 2 ; Matth. xi. 4-11, with Luke vii. 23-28 ; Matth. xii. 41-45, with Luke xi. 24-26, 31, 32. Yet the view, that the one made use of the complete work of the other, is beset with invincible difficulties, since, in that case, it remains inexplicable for what reason the one should not have either used or noticed the other's account of the Saviour's infancy. To solve this difficulty, I suppose that Matthew, who had written his Gospel in Hebrew, himself sub- sequently prepared* a Greek recension (no other than our canonical Matthew) ; and that for this work, he made use of smaller collec- tions of those memoirs which Luke had used, particularly Luke iii ix., in which section the closest coincidence is found. The affinity of Mark's Gospel with those of Matthew and Luke, must be differently explained.f Although he may have taken here and there a circumstance from tradition, or from shorter memoirs, yet, in the main (for there is very little in Mark that is peculiar to him ; with the exception of additional circumstances in various nar- ratives, two cures, briefly narrated, are all that he alone has), he follows Matthew and Luke entirely ; where he leaves the one, he follows the other, but only to return from the latter to the former. It is impossible for so regular a coincidence to be accidental. Still I do not go so far as to maintain, that Mark had both the Gospels before him while composing. With respect to Matthew, this is not perhaps improbable ; but, with respect to Luke, it would suit * This subject is handled more fully in 4 of this Introduction, f See Saunter, Ueber die Quellen des Marcus. Berlin, 1825. A. Knobel de origine evang. Marci. "Wratislaviae, 1831. INTRODUCTION. 141 better to suppose that Mark also was acquainted only with the sec- tion, chaps, iii.- ix., where the closest agreement is found ; so that Mark may still have been finished earlier, and, consequently, re- ceived into the canon earlier, than the complete Gospel of Luke. For, had Mark had access to the whole Gospel of Luke, it would be inexplicable why he should not have incorporated much of the important narrative of the journey in Luke ix. xviii.* Ke- specting the early chapters of Matthew and Luke, which contain the history of the childhood of Jesus, it might be said that Mark refrained from using them on the ground, that it was his purpose to describe only the official labours of Jesus. 4. ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW. Matthew, called Levi, the son of Alphasus (Matth. ix. 9 ; Mark ii. 14), is mentioned in the inscription as the authorf of the first of our four canonical Gospels ; and tradition establishes the fact, that Matthew wrote a Gospel ; but the question about the genuineness of Matthew is so intimately connected with the inquhy into the language in which it was composed, that the one cannot, by possi- bility, be answered apart from the other. All accounts of the Fa- thers who give any information about the Gospel of Matthew (see the Author's Geschichte der Ev., S. 19 ff.), agree in this, that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Syro-Chaldaic language. But on the relation in which our Greek Gospel by Matthew stands to the Aramaic, there rests an obscurity which previous investigations have not succeeded in penetrating. The readi- est suggestion is, to pronounce the Greek Gospel a translation of the Aramaic. On closer consideration, however, difficulties arise in the way of this view. First of all Papias (Euseb. H. E. iii. 39) might seem to speak against the existence of a translation, as he writes of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, rjwijvevoe 6' avrd, ? * See, however, what is said concerning this in the remarks on Luke ix. 61. f Although we are not, by any means, necessarily compelled to explain the inscrip- tions of the Gospels, as giving the author, yet they may be so taken grammatically ; it is the comparison of tradition that gives to this possible explanation its probability. The Karti might be taken = secundum ; so that the meaning of the formula would be a Gospel of Jesus, after St. Matthew's mode of description, or St. Mark's, which explanation would admit the supposition of other authors of the Gospels. But universally-prevailing tradition, which cannot have arisen out of these superscriptions, because it is too widespread and too ancient, decides in favour of taking /card as pointing out the author a usage found also 2 Mace. ii. 13. This form of expression was chosen to convey the genitive relation, because the simple genitive could hardly stand here, since the Gospel is not that of the author, but of Jesus Christ. As EvayyeTiiov 'Irjaov Xpiarov, Gospel of Christ, was in use, it was impossible to write Evayy&iov MarOaiov or MupKou, Gospel of Matthew, or Mark. 142 INTRODUCTION. rfv dvvarbg tKaarof, which each interpreted as he was able ; which words are best taken to mean, that every one had to try to explain the Hebrew book as well as he could (either from his own knowl- edge, or from that of some one else), because there was no transla- tion of it. However, we must not overlook the fact, that Papias says this, not of his own times, but of a time already past.* The passage cannot, accordingly, be adduced to show, that in the time of Papias, there was no Greek translation of Matthew in existence. Next, our Greek text of Matthew shews traces of originality, which render it extremely unlikely that we have hi it a mere translation. In particular, the passages from the Old Testament are quoted in a way so free and independent, that no translator would have so treated them.f This character of the Greek text, taken in connex- ion with the universally current tradition, that Matthew wrote an Aramaic Gospel, and with the like universal reception of this very Greek text in the church, as the genuine Gospel, renders it probable to me, as before observed, that Matthew, after the composition of the Aramaic Gospel, himself prepared also a Greek edition of it, or, at least, had it done under his authority. This Greek edition may be regarded as another recension of the Gospel, whereby the differ- ence that subsists between our Gospel according to Matthew and that of the Jewish Christians, which was a revision founded more on the Aramaic Gospel, is more easily accounted for. With the growing circulation of the Greek, the traces of the Aramaic Gospel were gradually lost, because to most it was inaccessible, by rea- son of the language, and its contents could be read as well in the Greek Gospel. The view, just detailed, of the relation of the Greek Gospel to the Aramaic, agrees best with the historical data. But, very re- cently, an attempt has been made to disprove the apostolical charac- ter of our Greek Gospel, on internal grounds. J But, from the na- * Sieffert (on the origin of the first canonical Gospel, p. 14, ff.) makes it probable that these are not the words of Papias, but of the elder presbyter John. According to this, even so early as John, must the time when each *vas obliged to translate for him- self Matthew's Aramaic Gospel have been already past. [E. f True, this free mode of treatment may have sprung from the Aramaic original, since in this, of course, the citations from the 0. T. must have been translated from He- brew into Aramaic. [E. Schlciermacher, Schulz, de "Wette, Schulthess, were the first to utter these doubts. Heidenreich has endeavoured to refute them in Winer's Theol. Journ., Bd. III., H. 2. They were followed by Sieffert (Konigsberg, 1832). Klener (Gottingen, 1832). Schneckenburger (Stuttgart, 1834). Consult Schleiermacher's Article on the Testimony of Papias (Stud, und Kritiken Jahrg. 1832, H. 4); and Strauss's Review in the BerL Jahrbiicher, 1834, No. 91, ff. Kern, Tubingen, 1834, defends the genuineness of Matthew against these attacks, still inclining to Sieffert's and Klener's views ; he also supposes a re-touching of the original, together with spurious additions, only allowing but few such. I have given my opinion of these works and their arguments more at length in the Er- INTRODUCTION. 143 ture of the case, such arguments have a very uncertain charac- ter ; much, if not every thing, depends on the feeling, and es- pecially on the doctrinal views of the critic. Hence the opinions of the learned differ greatly from each other ; where one sees a proof against the apostolical authorship of Matthew, another sees a testimony in its favour. We cannot, therefore, ascribe any import- ance to the results of internal criticism, as long as they are unsup- ported by historical proofs. (For further information on this sub- ject consult the Programmes mentioned in the note.) Lastly, in reference to the place and time of the composition of the Gospel by Matthew, but little can be said. Doubtless it was written in Palestine, and even in Jerusalem itself, since the tradi- tion of Matthew's labours points thither. The circumstance, that the Hebrew recension of the Gospel, under the title of evayyiXiov nad' 'E/3pawf [Gospel according to the Hebrews], was in use prin- cipally among the Jewish Christians in Palestine, also implies that it was composed in that country, and for its inhabitants. The Greek recension may certainly have had its origin in another country ; yet there are no data to enable us to decide accurately upon the point, and it is just as possible that Matthew, in consequence of the very general use of the Greek tongue in Pales- tine, in the time of the apostles, may have prepared a Greek edition of his Gospel for the benefit of the Hellenistic Jews who (Jwelt there. The supposition of the Greek Gospel originating in any other country is liable to this objection, that there are no re- marks added illustrative of the localities and customs of Palestine, such as we find in Mark and Luke, and which, in that case, would have been equally necessary in Matthew. Respecting the time of the composition we are totally destitute of express authority. The statement of Irenceus (adv. hasr. iii. 1), however, that it was written while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, comes, probably, very near the truth. According to Matth. xxiv., the Gospel was cer- tainly written before the destruction of Jerusalem, since this event, though near at hand, appears as still future. We can hardly, there- fore, be wrong in placing the composition of Matthew somewhere between A. D. 60-70, And, in conclusion, to say something on the distinctive charac- ter of Matthew, it is clearly seen, as was before observed, to be this, that Matthew labours to prove for Jewish readers that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by the prophets. The special regard for Jewish readers shows itself at the very commencement, in that the gene- alogy of Jesus is traced up to Abraham only ; it appears also in langen Easter Programme for the year 1835, and the Christmas Programme for 1836. On Sieffert's Work see the Author's Review in Tholuck's Liter. Anz. Jahrg. 1833. No. 14, ff. 144 INTRODUCTION. various express explanations (Matth. x. 6 ; xv. 24) ; and lastly, in assuming the reader's familiarity with every thing relating to the Mosaic law, Jewish customs and' localities. The distinctive charac- ter of Matthew is further evident in this, that he regards the out- ward features of the picture as entirely unessential and subordinate. He has conceived the life of Jesus from general points of view. At one time he pictures him as a new lawgiver ; at another, as a worker of miracles ; at another, as a teacher. The character of the Saviour he brings out specially by speeches, made up in part, ap- parently, of the elements of discourses delivered at different times.* These discourses, as chap. v. vii., x., xxi., xiii., xviii., xxiii., xxiv., xxv., are connected by historical introductions, which to the Evangelist how- ever seemed (much as in the case of John) in themselves of no sig- nificance, whence also he has elaborated them with much less care than the discourses. His work, regarded as a whole, exhibits its author unmistakably as absorbed by the majesty of the Saviour's character ; still he lacks the abundant susceptibility and refinement of spirit which we admire in John, while again he surpasses Mark in depth and spirituality. The Christ of Matthew is indeed not the Christ of the popular Jewish conceptions. Bather, he appears in di- rect conflict with what was false in the Jewish notion of the Messiah. Still the Son of God (whom Matthew, of course, in common with the other apostles, recognised in Jesus), presents himself, accord- ing to his portraiture, in a Jewish garb ; f while in John's, a robe of heavenly light floats around him ; so that the form in which the disciple of love introduces the Son of love, bears a spiritual glory corresponding to that of the Sacred Being whom it invests. As this cannot be said of Matthew, the ancients were not wrong in denom- inating the Gospel of Matthew, oco^ariKov, bodily, that of John, TTvevpaTiKov, spiritual; by which epithet it was not intended to mark that of Matthew as unapostolic ; but as in the Saviour the Word was manifested in a awjua, body, so, in a comprehen- * Schlichlhorst, Uebe,r das Verhaltniss der drei synoptisckeu Evangelien, und iiber den Charakter des Mt. insbesondere, Gottingen, 1835, attempts to substantiate too close a re- lationship between the separate parts of Matthew to each other. Various of his demon- strations are not without foundation ; but most of these references are undesigned, simply growing out of the spirit and harmony of the life of Jesus, not out of the reflection of the author. f- Matthew has committed to writing what constituted the substance of the oral preaching of the apostles to the Israelites ; the proof that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised (Gen. xv.) seed of Abraham, and the promised (2 Samuel, vii.) seed of David, in a word, the Messiah. This must be satisfactorily shown to the Israelites before pro- ceeding to the eternal deity of Christ. First his historical relation to prophecy ; then his essential relation to God, the universe, and the history of the world. Matthew in cha- racter and office belonged to the former of these periods. Hence we explain the promin- ence given by him to the human and Israelitish aspects of the Saviour's character. -[E. INTRODUCTION. 145 sive delineation of his life, along with the spiritual, the national and temporal elements of his character required to be livingly set forth. 5. ON THE GOSPEL OF MARK. JOHN MARK, often called simply Mark, was the son of a certain Mary (Acts xii. 12), who had a house at Jerusalem, where the apostles often assembled. He is known from the New Testament as the companion of Paul. (Acts xii. 25 ; xiii. 5 ; xv. 36, ff.) Even during Paul's imprisonment at Home, he is still associated with him (Col. iv. 10 ; Philem. 24) ; and whether we assume a second imprisonment of Paul at Home or not, he, in any case, appears in connection with Paul till the close of the apostle's life. (2 Tim. iv. 11.) In this there seems to be some contradiction to the notices of the fathers, according to which Mark appears in company with Peter, of which only one trace is met with in the New Testament, and that has some uncertainty attaching to it. (1 Peter v. 13.) But the notices of the fathers may be reconciled with the statements of the New Testament, by supposing that after the contention be- tween Paul, Barnabas, and Mark (Acts xv. 37, ff.), the last-named joined Peter/or a time. On this point the New Testament is silent, because less is there said about Peter than about Paul ; but after- wards, when the old relation between Mark and Paul was restored, and Peter, moreover, was labouring in conjunction with Paul at Home, Mark also appears again in connexion with Paul. But, to- gether with the account of the connexion of Mark and Peter, an ac- count too unvarying to be justly liable to question, the fathers tell us (see Euseb. H. E. iii. 39 ; v. 8 ; vi. 25. Tertutt. adv. Marc. iv. 5) that Peter gave his sanction to the Gospel which Mark, as his interpreter, had written. That the fathers are not quite unanimous in their re- lation of subordinate circumstances, can be no reason for doubting the trutlTof the main fact ; because nothing else can render intelli- gible the fact, otherwise so astonishing, that the Gospel by Mark was acknowledged in the church without any contradiction. The authority of this companion of the apostles was surely too inconsider- able, and his previous relation to our Lord too uncertain, for them to have relied on his personal character in receiving his narrative of the life of Jesus into the canon. Had it been the product of a later period, some more celebrated name would certainly have been put at the head of the book ; so that, even if history did not supply any such account, we must have conjectured something of the kind from the fact of the reception of Mark into the canon. The authority of Peter, which this Gospel enjoyed, also alone explains how any per- sons in the ancient church could have thought of using this Gospel VOL. L 10 146 INTRODUCTION. in preference to any other, as Irenceus (iii. 11, 17) tells us was the case. The character of the Gospel itself could not possibly lead to this, since it contains too little that is distinctive to gain a party to itself ; but it is easily conceivable, that partisans of Peter, on account of this very connexion, which, as they knew, subsisted between Mark and their leader, used this Gospel on the same prin- ciple that the partisans of Paul used that of Luke. But whether the Gospel by Mark suffered corruption in the hands of tjiese Christians of Peter's party, as that of Luke did among the ultras of Paul's (the Marcionites), and that of Matthew among the Jewish Christians, is uncertain. We know too little of the evay- yskiov tear' Alyvrrriov^ Gospel according to the Egyptians, to be able to say any thing certain of its relationship to the Gospel of Peter.* The time and place of the composition, can be determined with no more exactness than in the case of Matthew's Gospel. Here, also, we must rest content with one circumstance, that it was writ- ten before the destruction of Jerusalem. (Mark xiii. 14, ff.) From the relation it bears to Matthew, we may conclude, with much pro- bability, that it was composed later than the Gospel of that apostle. We come nearest the truth in supposing that Mark wrote his Gospel in the period shortly before the overthrow of Jerusalem [according to tradition shortly after the death of Peter, in the sum- mer of 64]. Respecting the place of its composition, tradition is divided between Alexandria and Rome. The Latin words which Mark has admitted into his book, favour the latter city ; and as, in any case, it had its origin in one of the centres of the early ecclesiastical life,f to which circumstance its rapid circulation must be partially ascribed ; and as nothing in the history of Mark is opposed to the idea that he wrote in Rome, the opinion that he did so seems to deserve the preference. No definite character is displayed in the Gospel by Mark. We see, indeed, at once that he did not write for Jewish readers, because Jewish manners and customs are carefully explained by him (com- pare the remarks on Mark vii. 3, 4) ; but what particular tendency * In my History of the Gospels (p. 97, ff.) I have too decidedly rejected the possibil- ity of a connexion between the Gospel of the Egyptians and Peter, and that of Mark. According to the general analogy, it is very probable that the Gospel of Mark also suffered corrruptions ; and it still remains possible that one of the writings belonging to the apoc- ryphal books of Peter's partisans was a corrupted Gospel by Mark. Schn.ecl;enburger, Ueber das Evangelium der Aegyptier. Bern, 1834, takes it to be a work related to the evayyihwv naff 1 'Eppaiov?, used by the Ebionites. Prom the Gospel of John, published by Miinter (Copenhagen, 1828), we see that it also, though not till a late period, suffered corruption from the Gnostics. Consult Ullmann in the Studien und Kritiken, Jahrg. L, H. iv., S. 818, ff. f Consult the Author's Gesch. der Evangelien, S. 440. INTRODUCTION. 147 in the ancient church he had in view, does not clearly appear. The Latinisms found in his Gospel are not -of themselves sufficient to stamp it with a Roman character. The evident pains bestowed on that vividness of narration which is characteristic of his Gospel, might be regarded as a more conclusive proof. The Roman na- tional character, displays unquestionably an adaptedness to the out- ward and the practical, which is in some measure reflected in Mark. He depicts with graphic power the minuter features of an ac- tion, and transports his readers into the very scene. Compare particularly Mark v. 1-20, 22-43 ; vi. 17-29 ; ix. 14, ff., with the parallel passages ; also Mark vii. 32-37 ; viii. 22-26, which are pecu- liar to him. This picturesqueness manifests itself mainly in the nar- ratives of cures, and most of all in the cures of certain demo- niacs (Mark v. 1, ff.; ix. 14, ff.) In his exhibition of the Saviour's spiritual character, and especially of his discourses, he is strikingly inferior. We cannot, therefore, regard his mere vividness of por- traiture as elevating him decidedly above Matthew. It would seem, also, that he aims only to give a vivid sketch of our Lord's official labours. His narrative therefore opens with the bap- tism. 6. ON THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. The person to whom tradition refers the third Gospel, is Luke, who is sufficiently known, from sacred history, as the companion of the Apostle Paul. His name is the shortened form of Lucanus as Alexas of Alexander, Cleopas of Cleopatros. That he was a physi- cian, is placed beyond doubt, by Col. iv. 14 ; and there is nothing improbable in the statement of the fathers, that he was a native of Antioch. He was a heathen by birth, as is satisfactorily proved by Col. iv. 14, compared with verse 11, and still more by the scope of his book. As Matthew evidently had in view the Jewish, so Luke the heathen Christians. He might be led to write for them, not only from national sympathy, but also by the example of the Apostle of the Gentiles, who controlled the direction of his labours. According to the tradition of the fathers (Euseb. H. E. iii. 4, v. 8, vi. 25 ; TertulL adv. Marc. iv. 5), Paul is also said to have exercised a confirmatory influence on the Gospel of Luke, like that of Peter on Mark's ; which information is confirmed in a simi- lar way by the rapid dissemination of the book, and its universal acknowledgment in the ancient church. But the internal structure of the Gospel shows more than all, that it sprang from the Pauline school, which it represents in the Gospel-collection. The universal character of this Gospel manifests itself at once 148 INTBODTJCTION. in its carrying the genealogy of Jesus up to Adam, while Matthew stops at Abraham, the ancestor of the Jews ; in the account of the sending forth of the seventy disciples as the representa- tives of all nations, while Matthew speaks only of the twelve apostles going forth as representatives of the twelve tribes ; and finally, in the omission of every circumstance which betrays any Jewish exclusiveness.* It may, therefore, be said, that as Mat- thew represents Jesus as the Messiah of the Jews, so Luke re- presents him as the Messiah of the heathen i. e., as he in whom all the higher aspirations of the heathen world were realized, and who made the heathen themselves the object of his labours. As respects the form of delineation, Luke has the peculiarity of exhib- iting, with great vividness and truth (especially in the long journey narrated in ix. 51 xviii. 14), not so much the discourses, as the conversations of Jesus, with the occasions which gave rise to them, the remarks interposed by the bystanders, and the way in which they terminated ; so that each of the Evangelists teaches us, even in his mode of delineation, to view the Saviour from a different aspect. Accordingly it was founded in the nature of the relations, that the ultra partisans of Paul and, as such, we must regard the Marcionites used this Gospel, in which their tendency is most definitely embodied, in preference to the others, and only endea- voured to remove, as Jewish additions, so much as did not agree with their exaggerated or mistaken Pauline views of the law and the Gospel, f In determining the place and time of the composition of Luke's Gospel, the person of Theophilus, to whom the Gospel is addressed, may, in some measure, guide us. He seems to have been a man of reputation (see note on Luke i. 3), and a resident of Italy. For we observe that the Evangelist, in treating of Oriental subjects, every- where adds explanations, and particularly, exact designations of place, in regard even to the best known localities. In relation, on the contrary, to the most inconsiderable places of Italy, they are omitted, as with these he could assume a familiarity on the part of his reader. Borne is, therefore, in all probability, to be regarded as the place of composition for this Gospel also, whither, in particular, we are led, by the close of the Acts of the Apostles, the second * Luke, alike in his active life, as companion of Paul, and in his writings, gives em- phasis to all that which serves for proof of the truth that the Saviour came not for Israel as a people, but only for the believing Israelites, and not for the Israelites only, but also for the believing heathen. [E. f That the Gospel of Marcion is a mutilated Gospel by Luke, has been convincingly shown by Hahn in his well-known work, Das Evangelium Marcions in seiner urspriing- lichen Gestalt, Konigsberg, 1823. Consult the Author's work on the Gospels, p. 106, ffi The counter-assertions of Schulz in TJllmann's Studien (B. ii. H. 3) still remain unestab- liahed. INTRODUCTION. 149 part of the Evangelist's work. For, without a formal close, it breaks off with the second year of Paul's imprisonment at Rome ; and as Luke was in company with Paul during that imprisonment, we can assign the place of composition with much probability. Further, as nothing is added about the issue of Paul's affairs, there remains but little obscurity as to the time of the composition of the Gospel. It must have been written shortly before the Acts of the Apostles, during Paul's imprisonment at Rome, and about sixty-four years after the birth of Christ. For it is not likely that a great space of time elapsed between the composition of the Gospel and that of the Acts, as the two works are so closely connect- ed. In all probability, also, Luke's acquaintance with Theophilus was the fruit of his stay in Rome. DC Wette (Einleitung ins. N. ,T., S. 182) draws from such passages as Luke xxi. 17, ff., the con- clusion, that this Gospel must have been written after the destruc- tion of Jerusalem ; but our remarks on Matth. xxiv. 15, will show that this conclusion is untenable. 7. ON THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPEL-HISTORY. The propensity to look everywhere for connexion and unity, is too deeply seated in human nature not to have sought its gratifica- tion in attempts to form a connected account of the Saviour's life out of the different Gospels. Such an undertaking meets a practi- cal want, by rendering easier the survey of all the circumstances in his life ; so that it is not surprising that we hear, even at a very early period, of attempts to form the different accounts of the Evan- gelists into a connected whole, such as were made by Tatian Am- monius, and Eusebius. But the narratives of the Evangelists do not admit of being reduced to a certain and strictly scientific unity. The difficulties in the construction of a Gospel har- mony lie in this, that some of the Evangelists have conducted their narratives with no reference to the order of time. They begin their histories, indeed, with the Saviour's birth, and close them with his death, as it could hardly be otherwise in a biogra- phy ; but the main body of the Gospel-history the exhibition of the official labours of Jesus is so treated, that the intention of preserving a definite chronological order in the events narrated is * Tatiaris work I have called, in my History of the Gospels, p. 335, ff., a Harmony of the Gospels ; but the zeal with which Theodoret, in the fifth century, caused it to be destroyed, points to grave heretical corruptions which it contained. There is no doubt that Tatian made a compilation from the whole Gospel-collection, such as suited las pur- poses, and took the liberty of making considerable alterations in the text, which his ad- herents probably further increased. Concerning other harmonies, consult 9 of this Introduction. 150 INTRODUCTION. nowhere perceptible. In Matthew, first of all, there is found from the temptation (ch. iv.), down to the last journey to Jerusalem (xx. 17), no exact statement of time which might serve for the arrange- ment of the material. For the most part, the Evangelist passes from one point to another, without any thing to fix the time (iv. 12, 18, 23 ; viii. 5, 18, 23, 28 ; ix. 1, 9, 35 ;) or he uses an indefinite TOTE, then, to connect them (in. 13 ; iv. 1 ; ix. 14 ; xi. 20 ; xii. 22, 38 ; xv. 1); or he arranges the several histories, one after an- other, with the comprehensive formulas, iv ratg ^pepaig KKIVCU<;, in those days (iii. 1 ; xiii. 1), iv iieeivu TW Katpu, in that time (xiv. 1), iv etteivq rq &pa, in that hour (xviii. /I). Precise statements as to time (as Matth. xvii. 1, [ted' faepag e, after six days) are ex- tremely rare. The large collections of discourses in Matthew show that his prevailing aim was to portray the character of Jesus, apart from time and place, and, by a grouping together of kindred actions and discourses, to bring him before the reader's mind in his differ- ent spheres of labour. In the case of Mark, this neglect of time and place is still more striking : even these general data are for the most part wanting with him. He usually gives his narra- tive unaccompanied by remarks ; he aims merely at a vivid por- trayal of the facts, without uniting them by any fixed principle of arrangement. Luke's chronology appears at first sight more exact ; so that we might expect to find in him events narrated in their natural succession. At the very commencement, in ch. i. 3, Kadegfjs, in order (see comment, on the passage), seems to point to a chronological arrangement ; then follows (iii. 1) a very important date for the chronology of the life of Jesus ; and (iii. 23) he remarks that the Saviour was thirty years of age at his entrance on his ministry. Yet, in the course of the Gospel, we find the same indefiniteness in his arrangement as in that of the others. For the most part, Luke, too, joins one narration to another, without statement of time (iv. 16, 31 ; v. 12, 33; vii. 18, 36 ; viii. 26 ; ix. 1, 18); sometimes the indefi- nite transitions i^erd ravra, after this (v. 27), iv fj-ta r&v ^fiepwv, on one of the days (v. 17 ; viii. 22), and the like, are inter- changed ; so that it often becomes doubtful whether, even in Luke, events are always arranged according to the succession of time ; but still, even if this be probable, a complete arrangement of the events in the Saviour's life cannot be accomplished by means of Luke, because no fixed points of connexion with the other Gos- pels can be laid down in the body of the narrative that is, from the baptism of Jesus to his last journey to the feast (Matth. xx. 17 ; Mark x. 32 ; Luke xviii. 31); for, after this, there is less lack of chronological data. True, it might be thought, that Buch a point is to be found in the history of the transfiguration, INTRODUCTION. 151 since all the three Evangelists (Matth. xvii. 1 ; Mark ix. 2 ; Luke ix. 28) connect it with what precedes by ped' r^epag , after six days. (The ditTtb ^ipai, in Luke are the same period, but differently reckoned). Yet if, commencing at this point, we make the attempt to arrange the events backwards and onwards, the thread is soon lost. But if, with the events, it appears impossi- ble to connect the statements of the Evangelists into an or- derly whole, it is still more so- with the discourses. What appears in Matthew (v vii., x., xiii., xxiii., and in several other places) as spoken in connexion, Luke gives broken up and widely scattered ; so that the very first attempt to restore the different parts of the discourses of Jesus to their chronological connexion, demonstrates the impossibility of so* doing, at least if the compilation, instead of serving merely a practical purpose, is to claim scientific certainty. Thus John alone remains, whose careful chronological arrange- ment strikes the eye, and who seems, therefore, to afford very im- portant materials for the chronological arrangement of the chief events at least, in the first three Gospels. For though, now and then, an indefinite fj^ra ravra, after this, occurs even in John (as iii. 22 ; vi. 1 ; vii. 1, and elsewhere), he usually states exactly, whether one day (i. 29, 35, 44 ; vi. 22 ; xii. 12), or two (iv. 40. 43), or three (ii. 1), or several days, intervened between the events re- corded. The discourses, also, are in John so connected with the occurrences mentioned, and are so complete in themselves, that they acquire, in their full extent, a fixed chronological place. The chief point, however, is that John gives us great divisions in the life of our Lord, between which we can endeavour to arrange the separate events. Besides the last passover (xiii. 1), which is mentioned by the synoptical Evangelists also, he speaks distinctly of another pass- over, at which Jesus was present (ii. 13) ; and between these two fixed points at the beginning and end of the ministry of Jesus, John mentions further two feasts which the Saviour celebrated at Jerusalem viz., the feast of the dedication of the temple (x. 22), and the feast of tabernacles (vii. 2). Besides these, mention is made (v. 1) of another feast ; but its character is left undetermined. If we possessed only the records of the first three Gospels, we should know nothing certain of these journeys of Jesus to the feasts ; we could only arrive at the probable conclusion, that he would cer- tainly not have neglected the Old Testament command (Ex. xxiii. 17) to go up to Jerusalem at the three great feasts, since we find him so scrupulous in the observance of the law in other points. Yet there is no clear evidence, even from John, of the number of journeys to the feasts, which took place during the ministry of Jesus, and hence the relation of the occurrences to the chronology of Christ's active ministry still remains obscure. What John nar- 152 INTRODUCTION. rates, certainly occurred in the order in which he narrates it ; but it is uncertain how long a period is included whether he details the events of one year, of two years, or of several. First of all, we cannot prove that John has left no journey of Jesus to the feasts unmentioned. Moreover, the indefiniteness of the passage (v. 1#) makes his whole chronology uncertain ; for although much may be said in favour of the opinion, that the festival there referred to was a passover, f yet this cannot be fully ascertained, particularly as we read so soon as vi. 4 of another nearly approaching passover ; for it is, after all, harsh to refer iyyvs, near, to the passover that was gone by, as Dr. Paulus does. (See the retrospect quoted in the note.) Whether, therefore, according to John's representation, Jesus celebrated three passovers or four at Jerusalem during his ministry, cannot be stated with certainty ]% and how difficult it must be to use the notices of John respecting the journeys of Jesus, for the purpose of arranging the historical materials of the other Gospels, appears sufficiently from the one circumstance, that, as he gives hardly any information about the life of Jesus but such as the other Evangelists had not given, no point of contact between them and him can be assigned. The history of the feeding of the five thousand (John vi. 1-15), with the walking on the sea imme- diately following it (vi. 16-21), is the only event which is parallel with Matthew (xiv. 13, ff.), Mark (vi. 30, ff.), and Luke (ix. 10, ff.); and the first two Evangelists, Matthew and Mark, like John, con- nect Christ's walking on the sea with the feeding of the five thou- sand. Yet as, on the one hand, the connexion of events cannot be pursued with certainty, and, on the other, the exact time of the miraculous feeding is uncertain, even in John, on account of the in- defmiteness of v. 1 and vi. 4, so we reach nothing conclusive for the arrangement of the whole from this single point of contact. Whether any particular event belongs to the beginning or the close of the public ministry of Jesus, is sufficiently shewn, it is * Kaiser, in his Synopsis (Niirnberg, 1828), regards it as a feast of tabernacles. Con- sult the commentary on the passage. f Consult the chronological retrospect at the end of the first volume of Dr. Paulus? Commentary on the Gospels. \ In reference to the chronological difficulties in John's Gospel ilselfj we must fur- ther compare the passage (x. 22) in which John passes on to the feast of the dedica- tion, in a way that leaves it altogether uncertain how the presence of Jesus at that feast stands related to his presence at the foast of tabernacles (vii. 2), since no mention is made either of his going away or remaining. It might even be thought to be the feast of de- dication in another year, were it not that the following discourse (x. 27, 28) refers too plainly to the preceding context (x. 12, 13). Just so Liicke observes in his Commentar uber den Johannes, Th. i., S. 526: "How that which John has mentioned out of the variety of events may bo chronologically harmonized with what the first three Evangelists narrate in the above-mentioned (mid- dle) period, is an insolvable problem of historical criticism." See the further remarks, S. 614, 615, of the same work. INTRODUCTION. 153 true, partly by its position in the Goapels, partly by its internal character; but the character of the Evangelists' narrative, who commonly leave time and place undetermined, admits of our bring- ing neither all the separate incidents recorded of the Saviour, nor his discourses, into precise chronological connexion. We, therefore, take the Gospel-history as it is given to us, following the chronological order as far as the Evangelists enable us to discover it plainly, but nowhere bringing it out violently and artificially where it has not been given. According to the synopsis of De Wette and LiicJce, which we take as the foundation of our exposition, we shall first treat of the history of the childhood of Jesus and his baptism ; and, last, of the narrative of his sufferings, resurrection, and ascen- sion (combining John's description of these latter circumstances) ; but with respect to the intermediate materials of the Gospel-history, we shall chiefly follow Matthew, incorporating with his narrative where they appear to us most probably to belong those portions contained only in Mark and Luke, or in either one of them. The editors of the synopsis have, indeed, treated this part in such a manner, as to give the whole matter three times over according to the order of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. A threefold exegetical dis- cussion of this part would certainly have secured no small advan- tages ; they had, however, to be sacrificed, as requiring too much space. 8. ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL-HISTORY. The description given above of the origin of the Gospels from separate memoirs, whose authors are unknown, the character of the Gospel-history itself, through a large portion of which we can trace no chronological arrangement, and lastly, the distinct discrepancies discoverable in various events, particularly in the composition of the discourses are all circumstances which seem to endanger the credibility of the Gospel-history, especially in such events as lay without the immediate knowledge of any one of the narrators, as, for instance, the childhood of Jesus. The Gospels seem in this way to acquire the appearance of an unarranged aggregate of se- parate and uncertain accounts, which neither agree precisely with each other, nor even, in each individual Gospel, stand in strict con- nexion. The older theology was apprehensive that, by a view such as modern criticism has established, the sacred character of the Gos- pel-history would be entirely taken away. Starting from the literal inspiration* of the sacred writers, they laboured to force a harmony, * I distinguish literal inspiration from verbal, and maintain the latter, while I deny the former. The distinction between them does not lie, as I think, in the essence and the form (for the form, too, is necessary in one aspect), but in the essential and the unesseti tialform. But the question, Where is the essential in the form separated from the uncs- 154 INTRODUCTION. and to reconcile all discrepancies in facts and words ; but, from the character of the Gospels, this procedure could not but lead to the most arbitrary treatment ; that is to say, wherever there appeared a difference, whether in the events or in the discourses, the event or the discourse was always said to have been twice, and sometimes even thrice repeated. By setting up the principle, therefore, that the Gospel-history must agree in all things external and non-essen- tial, they put weapons into the hands of the enemies of God's Word ; the evident non-agreement was used as an argument for denying the divine origin of the Scriptures. The true course, therefore, is, in this case, also, to adhere to the truth, plainly to acknowledge the evident fact of discrepancies in the Gospel-history, to seek for a re- conciliation of these variations where it presents itself naturally, but to resort to nothing far-fetched or forced. An external agreement in the Gospel-history should not be absolutely required as proof of its divinity, any more than in the formations of nature ; as in them exact regularity is combined with the greatest freedom, BO also, in the Gospel-history, perfect agreement in what is es- sential, is found with the freest treatment of what is unessen- tial.* The credibility of the Gospel-history is securely based only on the identity of that vital principle which reigned in all the indi- vidual Evangelists, and in which the whole new communion, of which they were but members, shared. That vital principle was the Spirit who guides into all truth. But this Spirit, who inspired the Evangelists and the whole company of the apostles, neither relieved them from the use of the ordinary means of historical inquiry, as, for instance, the use of family memoirs or narratives of single events ; nor did he obliterate their peculiarities, and use them as passive organs ; he rather spiritualized their individual capacities and powers, gave them a sure faculty (tact) of separating every thing false in matters of faith and in the essentials of the narra- tive ; of recognizing what was genuine and appropriate, and of arranging it according to a profounder principle. Although, sential f what is word, what is tetter f will never admit of being answered as respects individual cases, so that all shall be satisfied, because the mind's subjective attitude ex- ercises too much influence over our views on the point. In general, however, those who are one in the principles, will be able to unite in this canon : The form of Scripture is to be regarded as essential, as far as it is connected with what is essential in the doctrine, and is, consequently, also to be ascribed to inspiration ; it is only where there is no such connexion, that the form is to le regarded as unessential. Consult, further, TholncVs excellent disser- tation on the contradictions in the Gospels, in his Glaubwiirdigkeit der Evangelischen Geschichte gegen Straws, Hamburg, 1837, S. 429, ff., which preserves just the right me- dium. * Literal agreement in the Gospels, would have suggested to the enemies of the truth, the charge of a concert among the authors to deceive ; as Scripture now is, it appears at once divine and human. [A clear distinction must be drawn between variations and con- tradictions. The former may, of course, be assumed in the Evangelists. "We must re- quire the strongest evidence before admitting the latter. [K. INTRODUCTION. 155 therefore, the Evangelists sometimes threw the elements of our Lord's discourses into other than their original combinations, the import of those parts, although modified, is not altered. For, as the living Word, which the Lord himself was, wrought in the Evange- lists also, and inspired them, it formed in each of them a new spirit- ual whole, in which the members of the separated whole appear harmoniously re-united. This view of the Scripture of its unity in essentials, and its di- versity in non-essentials equally leads away from the superstitious reverence of the dead letter, and prompts to the search for the living Spirit; yet it stands aloof from that hollow spirituality which fancies itself able to do without the external word, and thereby falls into the danger of taking its empty dreams for essential ideas of the truth. Although, therefore, Providence intended that external proofs of the genuineness of the Gospels should not be wanting, yet it has not permitted that the credibility of the events recorded in them should be incontrovertibly demonstrated. Occasions are left for doubt and suspicion ; and by these the Gospel history fulfils a part of its design, since Christ, in Scripture, as well as when personally labouring on earth, is set for the fall of many. (Luke ii. 34.) In every reader of the Gospel-history, therefore, is presupposed a readiness to receive the Spirit of truth. Where this exists, the Gospel-history, in its peculiar character, asserts its claims with over- whelming force. For, although the Gospel partakes of the general character of history and biography, yet, as its subject is itself incom- parable, it is, in its treatment of the subject, not to be compared with any other work of the kind. The Evangelists write in a style of childlike artlessness and lofty simplicity, such as are found nowhere else thus united. Their individual views and feelings entirely dis- appear they narrate without making reflections, without bursting into expressions of praise, or blame, or admiration, even in portray- ing the sublimest events. They appear, as it were, absorbed in the contemplation of the mighty picture displayed before them, and, forgetting themselves, reflect its features in their pure truth. The Gospel-history, therefore, bears witness to itself and its own cu'edibil- ity, in no other way than did our Lord himself ; He had no witness but himself and the Father, (John viii. 18) ; so the Gospel-his- tory (like the Scripture in general) bears witness to itself only through the Divine Spirit, who reigns in it. He that is of the truth, hears his voice. It is only where this Spirit has not yet displayed his power, that the conception could arise that the history of Christ is on a par with other biographies of great men ; and, that, therefore, what is miraculous in it, as well as in them, should be regarded as a myth. The want of personal experience of the regenerating 156 INTRODUCTION. power of Christ the want of that testimony of the Holy Spirit, which alone assures us of the divine origin of the Scriptures, has always caused offence to "be taken at the miraculous garb that in- vests the person of our Lord. In ancient times this offence simply took the form of a hostile attitude towards the church. It is re- served for very recent times, to see this offence pretending to be an advance in Christian science. It appeared first in the form of what was called the natural explanation, the very unnaturalness of which has, however, long since pronounced its condemnation ; it. needs, accordingly, no further refutation. Then, especially since the time of Gabler, it appeared in the form of the mythical explanation, which also has been pushed on to self-destruction through its very extreme application by Strauss. The inapplicability of the mythi- cal exposition to the life of Jesus is incontrovertibly manifest : 1. From the nearness, in point of time, of the documents which record it namely, the four canonical Gospels, the antiquity and genuineness of which are satisfactorily demonstrable on internal and external grounds. As long as the eye-witnesses of the miraculous events of the life of Jesus were living, there could be no such things as myths viz., formations of involuntary, inventive rumour but only produc- tions of enthusiasm or deceit ; 2. From the acknoivledged genuine- ness of the Acts of the Apostles, and of the Pauline Epistles, as loell as of the other principal writings of the Neiu Testament. Hitherto no one has ventured to pronounce the chief Epistles of Paul and John to be spurious,* and yet they contain precisely the same view of the person of Christ which lies at the basis of the four Gospels. This appears, consequently, to have been the early Christian view. If the mythical explanation is to be defended, nothing is left but to pronounce the Apostle Paul an enthusiast or a deceiver ; 3. The rise of the Christian Church the continuity of feeling in it the purity of the Spirit that wrought in it, with especial power, in the first centuries, do not allow us, in any way, to conceive of merely a beau- tiful romance as the ultimate foundation of these phenomena. That a church could be formed of Jews and heathen, who worshipped a crucified Son of God, is, according to the mythical view of the life of Jesus, a far greater miracle than all those which it is intended to dispense with. It is only from the records of the Evangelists, taken as history, that this fact becomes conceivable. Since, moreover, in this church, while gradually extending itself over the world, there was still a constant connexion of feeling, and a spirit of purity, never * Since negative criticism has advanced to its extreme limit, it is no longer myths, but wilful fabrications which are discerned in the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the letters of John. In this, however, the theory has uttered its own sentence of death. See on this point, my Kritik der Ev. Geschichte, 2 te AufL (Critical view of the Gospel- history, 2d ed.) 1 and 123-147. [B. INTRODUCTION. 157 previously beheld, inspired it, especially in the very early times, we cannot perceive where we can find room for the pretended formation of myths. It can be found only on the unscientific assumption, that no existing records date from the first Christian century. The mythical scheme appears, accordingly, a partial, indecisive measure. The decided anti-Christian spirit will pronounce Christianity, to- gether with the whole Scripture, the product of enthusiasm and deception. [The theory which Strauss, in his famous " Life of Jesus," at- tempted to apply to the history of Christ's birth, life, sufferings, and death, needs to be known, as to its general features, before the remarks in the text above, and in many other parts of this work, can be understood. Strauss is a philosopher of the school of Hegel an ultra-ideal school and an avowed Pantheist. Entertaining such philosophical views, a miracle was, to him, impossible, and the history of Jesus could not, of course, be literally true ; and, to ac- count for the form of our present Gospel-narratives, he adopted a theory something like the following : Jesus was a Jew. who, by early training, had become enthusiastically desirous of seeing the fulfilment of the prophecies, and, at length, believed himself to be the Messiah. Filled with the loftiest ideas of purity, and of the high destiny of man, he gathered around him a band of devoted disciples, who were fired with something of his own enthusiasm. The leading idea enforced in his teaching, was the union attainable between the human mind and the divine. At length he died a violent death, from having incurred the hatred of the Pharisees. A mere skeleton is all that Strauss leaves of his life as historically true. It is not true, he says, that Christ was born of a virgin that he wrought miracles that he rose from the dead and as- cended to heaven. Then his disciples must have deceived us, we are ready to exclaim. No, says Strauss. The accounts of him con- tained in the Gospels were the product of their fervid imagina- tions ; and, without the slightest intention to deceive, there grew up among his followers a complete history, adorned with all that they thought could render their master's memory glorious. The Old Tes- tament was the principal source of the additions thus made to the simple narrative of Christ's life. Whatever they found there of en- dowments from above, was at once ascribed to the Saviour, who, in their view, must possess all that Heaven had ever bestowed on man. And, in particular, they sought, to embody the main doctrine of their Master's teachings viz., the union of our souls with God, as the aim of life, in his person, by uniting in that person the divine and human natures. Taken alone, the theory seems too baseless to have been serious- 158 INTKODUCTION. ly proposed and applied in two considerable volumes ; but the his- tory of religious opinion in Germany throws some light on its origin. What Kant and his followers denominated moral interpretation that is, giving a moral and spiritual meaning to historical facts had been exploded sometime previously, and had been succeeded by the natural interpretation adopted by the nationalist school, with Paulus at their head. This scheme had, in its turn, been exposed as utterly hollow, because it was plain that the Evangelists meant to give a miraculous history ; and it is dishonest to interpret their language otherwise. Driven from these two refuges, those who would not take the Gospel-history as a miraculous one, were bound to give some explanation of the fact of such a history, so attested, being in existence. And, as it has been the fashion in Germany, to assume a mythical period in the history of Greece and Rome, and many other nations, Strauss attempted to assign the history of Jesus to such a period. To attain his end, he is compelled to deny the genuineness of every one of the Gospels, and ascribes them all to a period subsequent to the first century of the Christian era. The theory hardly needs refutation. The work is a repository of all the difficulties that beset a harmony of the four Gospels ; and, as such, may cause uneasiness to readers who are not properly ac- quainted with the solutions of those difficulties, both in general and in particular instances ; but it could not satisfy any but a thorough- ly infidel mind, glad to catch at any hypothesis that gives a sem- blance of ground for impugning the veracity of the witnesses of Christ's life]. Tr. 9. SURVEY OF THE LITEEATUBE. As soon as the active labours of the apostles, who wrought chiefly with the living Word, ceased in the church, the people betook them- selves to those written legacies which they had bequeathed to the church in order, by the examination of the written Word, partly to estab- lish themselves more thoroughly in the known truth, and partly by it to separate truth and falsehood. Since the second century, many distinguished men have devoted their powers to the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and of the New Testament in particular. Nevertheless, its contents are yet unexhausted. So great is the depth of the Word of God, that it meets the utmost wants of all times and all relations, of every degree of cultivation and develop- ment. It lies, however, in the nature of the church's progress, that by gradual advances she was enabled to penetrate with ever-in- creasing depth and thoroughness into the understanding of the Scriptures. Our own times, in particular, have made an immense INTRODUCTION. 159 advance in this point, that, in recognizing more and more the com- prehensive sense of Scripture, we have learnt to regard the greater portions of previous expositions not so much as absolutely false, as rather embracing but a single phase of the thought. Hence we re- gard the labours of centuries to understand the Scriptures as connect- ed, and supplemental to one another ; while, the view formerly prevalent, made it necessary to pronounce all the various expositions, except the single true one, a mass of errors. According to this, the church of earlier ages must, for the most part, have utterly failed to understand the Scriptures, which would be saying, in other words, that the spirit had not been in the church. We must rather say, that the church has always understood the Bible aright in essen- tials ; but that a still profounder understanding of it has been grad- ually attained. In the first place, as respects the general works which embrace the whole New Testament, we do not possess a complete exposition of the whole New Testament by any of the teachers in the early church ; they used to apply themselves at first to single books. It is not till the ninth century, that the Glossa Ordinaria, by Wala- frid Strabo, appears as a continuous commentary on the New Testament, if indeed, it deserves the name of a commentary at all. Subsequently to him, Nicolaus de Lyra and Alphonsus Tostatus, Bishop of Avilla, in Spain, wrote complete commentaries on the entire Scriptures the latter in twenty-three folios. At the time of the Eeformation, Calvin commented on the whole New Testa- ment except the Kevelation of St. John ; as well as Johann Brenz, among the Lutherans, seven folios of whose works are filled with expositions of almost all the books in the Bible. In the seventeenth century, several works appeared, embracing the whole New Testa- ment. Besides Hugo Grotius (in his Adnotationes in N. T., 2 vols. 4to), we may notice particularly the collection of expositions under the name Critici Sacri (London, 1660, 9 vols. fol.), of which Polus [Pool] prepared an abridgment ; and further, Calovii Biblia Ittus- trata (Francof. 1672, 4 vols. fol.), a work which was directed against Grotius, and includes the exegetical works of the author. These were followed by PfafTs edition of the Bible, Tubingen, 1729 ; Wolfii Curse Philologicae et Oriticae, Hamburg, 1738, 4 vols. 4to ; Heumann's Erkliirung des N. T., Hanover, 1750, 12 vols. 8vo ; Moldenhauer's Erkliirung der Schriften des N. T., Leipzig, 1763, 4 vols. 4to ; J. D. Michaelis' Uebersetzung des N. T. mit Anmer- kungen, Gottingen, 1789, 3 vols. 4to ; Bengelii Gnomon N. T., TubingaB, 1773, 4to ; J. G. Kosenmiilleri Scholia in N. T., Norim- bergaB, 1777, 5 vols. 8vo. (The last edition [the sixth] appeared in 1825). Henneberg planned a complete commentary on the New Testament ; but only the first volume, containing Matthew, ap- 160 INTRODUCTION. peared, Gotta and Erfurt, 1829. The author died in 1831. H. A. W. Meyer has prepared a commentary on the New Testament. De Wette has also published an exposition of the New Testament. Among the general works on the New Testament, we must also reckon the well-known Observationen-Sammlungen, by Eaphelius, (out of Xenophon, Hamb. 1720 ; out of Polybius and Arrian, Hamb. 1715 ; out of Herodotus, Liirieb. 1731), Albert! (Leiden, 1725), Kypke (Breslau, 1725), Eisner (Utrecht, 1728), Palairet (Leiden, 1752). As regards the Gospel-collection^ the expositions of Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus have come down to us. The ancient ex- position which Theophilus of Antioch is said to have composed on the four Gospels, is lost. Of the time of the Eeformatiou, Mart. Chemnitzii Harmonia Quatuor Evangeliorum, continued by Poly- carpus Lyser and Johann Gerhard (Hamb. 1704, 3 vols. fol.), is particularly distinguished. Clericus also composed a similar har- mony (Amsterd. 1669, fol). Of more recent times, the following include all the four Gospels : Kocheri Analecta (Altenb. 1766, 4to), which are supplementary to Wolfs Curas ; J. F. G. Schulz, Anmer- kungen iiber die vier Evangelien, Halle, 1794, 4to ; Ch. Th. Kui- noel Commentarius in Libros N. T. Historicus, Lips. 1807, 4 vols. 8vo (including the Acts of the Apostles); Paulus, philologisch- kritischer Commentar iiber das N. T., Ltibeck, 1800-1808, 5 vols.; also his Exegetisches Handbiich iiber die drei ersten Evangelien, Heidelberg, 1830, 1831, 2 vols. ; Fritzsche, evangelia quatuor cum Notis, Lips. 1825, 1830, 8vo. The first volume comprises Matthew, the second Mark. Lastly as regards the single Gospels. Among the fathers we possess fragments of a commentary on Matthew by Origen. Chry- sostom wrote ninety-one homilies on the Gospel by Matthew. Pos- sin published a catena on this Evangelist, Tolosae, 1646. In later times Salomo van Till, Frankf., 1708, and Jac. Eisner, Zwoll., 1769. 4to, wrote upon Matthew. Also, Gotz, Erklarung des Matthaus aus dem Griechisch-Hebraischen und dem Hebraischen, Stuttgardt, 1785, 8vo ; Heddaus, Erklarung des Matthaus, Stuttgardt and Tubingen, 1792, 2 vols ; Der Bericht des Matthaus von Jesus dem Messias, by Bolten, Altona, 1792, 8vo ; Kleuker's Biblische Sympathien, Schles- wig, 1820 ; Das Evangelium Matthai, erklart von Gratz (of Bonn), Tubingen, 1821, 2 vols. 8vo ; Pires, Commentarius in Evangelium Mattheei, Mogunt., 1825. Of special value is Tholuck's " Philolo- gisch-theologische Auslegung der Bergpredigt Christ! nach Mat- thaeus" (Philological and Theol. Com. on Christ's Sermon on the Mount, as contained in Matthew.) Hamburg, 1833. * For the complete literature of the Gospel harmonies, see Hase's Leben Jesu, & INTRODUCTION. 161 On the Gospel by Mark we have, likewise a catena edited by Possin, Home, 1673. Jac. Eisner wrote a commentary upon Mark, Utrecht, 1773 ; and Bolten also, Altona, 1795, 8vo ; Matthai pub- lished an Exposition of Mark, by Victor, a presbyter of Antioch, and other Greek fathers, Moscow, 1775, 2 vols. 8vO. Lastly, in reference to Luke, we have a catena on it by Corde- rius, Antwerpen, 1628. This Gospel was separately commented on by Pape, Bremen, 1777, 1781, 2 vols. 8vo ; by Bolten, Altona, 1796, 8vo. We have also Moras, Preelections in Lucae Evangelmm, pub- lished by 0. A. Donat. Leips. 1795, 8vo. The latest works on Luke, are Scholia in Lucam scripsit Bornemann, Lips., 1830 ; and Stem's Commentar tiber den Lucas. Halle, 1830. VOL. L 11 SYNOPTICAL EXPOSITION OP THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. FIRST PAET. OF THE BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD OF JESUS CHRIST, FIRST SECTION. MATTHEW'S ACCOUNT. CHAPTERS I. AND II. 1. GENEALOGY OF JESUS. (Matth. L 1-17 ; Luke iii. 23-38.) WHILE Mark at once, in the title of his Gospel (Mark i. 1), de- scribes Christ as the Son of God, Matthew represents him as the Son of Man, since he first characterizes him as the promised de- scendant of the two great heads of the Old Testament economy Abraham and David and then introduces his entire genealogy. The character of Matthew's Gospel, as the doyttmKov, corporeal, in the nobler sense of the word, and its special adaptation to Jewish Christians, show themselves, in this form of beginning, too plainly to be mistaken. Since Jesus is introduced as vlb$ 'Aj3padfj,, Son of Abraham, he appears as the descendant of him whose family is blessed among the families of mankind ; but, as Son of David, he was more definitely assigned to a branch of the Abrahamic race viz., the family of him who, even in the Old Testament, is described as the representative of the future head of the kingdom of God. Both expressions, therefore, point out Jesus as the promised Mes- siah. Yet this is still more definitely expressed in the name 'Iqaovg Xpiarog, Jesus Christ. 'tyoovg, * Jesus, as the proper name of the individual, refers immediately to the Saviour only as a historical * TheLXX. use 'Irjaovc for yoirn or yno^ which latter form is first found in writings, after the time of the captivity. The name marks our Lord's spiritual character, and was given to him by divine command (Matth. i. 21), to intimate his exalted calling. Just so the Old Testament names, Abraham, Israel, &c., denote the spiritual character which those persons were called to exhibit amongst mankind. 166 MATTHEW I. 1. personage ; Xpiarog, Christ, on the other hand, is the official name for the expected deliverer of Israel. It corresponds to the Hebrew >T, Anointed, which word is used in the Old Testament, some- times of kings (1 Sam. xxiv. 6, 10 ; xxvi. 16, and elsewhere) ; sometimes of high-priests (Lev. iv. 3, 5, 16, and elsewhere) ; some- times of prophets (Psalm cv. 15) ; because all these persons were consecrated to their office by the symbolical rite of anointing (on the anointing of prophets see 1 Kings xix. 16), to intimate, that . for the due discharge of their office, they must be endowed with spiritual powers. But the expression is rarely used in the Old Tes- tament of the royal prophet and high-priest of the kingdom of God. (Psalm ii. 2 ; Daniel ix. 25.) From these passages, with which others were connected, in which the anointing was viewed spiritu- ally (comp. Is. Ixi. 1, with Luke iv. 18), arose the name Xpitrrof, which, even at the time of Christ, had become the prevailing official designation of the great desired one. In this view, the name " Christ" expresses the union of the divine and human natures in the person of the Saviour, since the humanity is the anointed the endowed ; the divine power is the anointing the endowing. Originally the Saviour was called either 6 'Irjaovg, with reference to his historical individuality, or 6 Xpiorog, with reference to his dig- nity; also, 'Irjoovg 6 teyofievog XQIOTOS (Matth. i. 16, on which consult the commentary). It was only at a later period that the two terms were united into the collective appellation 'Iqoovg Xpiorog, Jesus Christ. The first verse in Matthew does not, perhaps, form merely a superscription for the subsequent genealogy. Bij3Xo$ yeveoeb)? (=n i nV'iFi IBS G-en. v. 1) means primarily, "book of the descent," "genealogy," and forms in the Old Testament the general super- scription to the genealogy in question, and to the accompanying biographical sketches by which it is carried out and illustrated. Matthew has doubtless employed the expression here in a similar manner. His Gospel is the exposition of the genealogy ; the proof that Jesus was the promised seed of Abraham and son of David. The genealogy in Matthew, compared with . that of Luke, shows plainly the different character of the two Gospels. While Matthew begins with Abraham, the ancestral father of the Jewish people, Luke ascends to Adam, the first father of the whole human race heathen as well as Jews and thus connects the Saviour with human nature as such, apart from all national individuality. But in the particulars we find that, from David downwards, the two genealogies vary. Matthew traces the line of descent through Solomon, Luke through another son of David Nathan. Two names only Sa- lathiel and Zorobabel (see Luke iii. 27, compared with Matth. i. 12) are the same in both, the rest being entirely different ; but these MATTHEW I. 1. 167 persons must be regarded as living at different times, since in Matthew nine persons are enumerated "between them and Jesus, and in Luke eighteen.* The difficulty arising from the fact that Matthew and Luke give quite different genealogies of Jesus, was the subject of learned investigations, even in the earliest times of the church ; Julius Africanus, in particular, gave his attention to it (Euseb. H. E. i. 7.) Three hypotheses f for the solution of this difficulty have been framed with great acuteness : 1. The sup- position of a levirate marriage (Deut. xxv. 6) ; in which case, how- ever, to explain all, we must farther suppose, that the two brothers, who had successively the same wife, were not properly brothers, but step-brothers, sons of the same mother by different fathers ; be- cause, if they had been by one father, the genealogy would have been the same. This hypothesis was first propounded by Julius Africanus (ut supra). Agreeably to it, the descent would be as follows : David Solomon Nathan Matthan MelchiJ JL, JL Jacob Eli. I Joseph, the husband of Mary. This hypothesis explains the difference ; yet, in the first place, the supposition that Jacob and Eli had the same wife, one after the other, and were, moreover, step-brothers, is somewhat harsh ; fur- ther, it cannot be demonstrated with certainty that it was the prac- tice to take the name of the real father in the case of obligatory marriages ; and lastly, both genealogies would be those of Joseph, which appears unsuitable on this account, that Jesus, according to the flesh, was descended from David and Abraham, not through Joseph, but through Mary. That step-brothers, and still more dis- tant relations, were also bound to fulfil the levirate marriage, is * Luke has, on the other side, also between David and Salathiel twenty members ; Matthew only fourteen. [E. f Other attempts at explaining this difficulty are to be found in Wolf's Curse, and Kocher's Analecta, but they are futile. Consult also Surerihusius 1 ftifihoc; /cara/l/layj/f, page 322, seqq. % Julius Africanus omits Matthan and Levi, and appears, therefore, to have had an- other reading before him, or to have transposed the names. The name, however, makes no difference in the hypothesis. 168 MATTHEW I. 1. shewn by J. D. Michaelis, in his Commentaries on the Laws of Moses (Smith's translation). 2. The assumption that Mary was an heiress (IniK.krjpog,') in which case she would be obliged to marry within her own tribe. (Numb, xxxvi. 5-8). The husband of an heiress was at the same time obliged to enter himself in the family of his wife, and so came to have as it were two fathers. In this way one of the genealogies would indeed be that of Mary ; but the latter circumstance viz., the being received into the wife's family, and the taking the name of the father-in-law on the part of those who married heiresses, which in this case is all-important, is precisely what is uncertain ; at least Nehemiah vii. 63 is not sufficient to es- tablish it.* This hypothesis, however, though it does not suffice for solving the difficulty, is very suitable for explaining Mary's journey to Bethlehem. (Luke ii. 4.) In general it seems well suited to the course of development in David's family, that that line of it from which the Messiah was to proceed, should close with an heiress, who ended it in giving birth to the promised everlasting heir of the throne of David. We may, therefore, combine the opinion, that Mary was an heiress, with (3) the third hypothesis, according to which the genealogy of Mary is given by Luke, that of Joseph by Matthew. Thus Jesus is shewn, as well on the father's as the mother's side, to be of the house of David. On the mother's side the descent had a real significance, on the father's an ostensible one. For, as Jesus passed in the eyes of the world for the son of Joseph (see note on Matth. xiii. 55), the Jews acknowledged him in this relation also as of the house of David ; and on this account not a doubt of his descent from David is ever uttered by his enemies. Agreeably to this hypothesis, Eli (Luke iii. 23) would be the father of Mary (with which the Jewish tradition coincides, see Lightfoot, ad loc.) ; and when Joseph is called his son, " son" (vloc^ is here to be taken in the sense of " son-in-law," as Kuth 1. 11, 12, and else- where. Genealogical tables are, indeed, unusual in the case of wo- men, but for heiresses they must necessarily exist ; and at all events the father of Mary had assuredly his genealogy. The actual descent of Jesus from David through Mary, is, moreover, by no means to be regarded as a merely external fact, intended to fulfil the prophecies. The prophecy itself that the Messiah should descend from Abraham and David, is rather to be viewed as having a deeper origin. The appearance of the Messiah among mankind, presupposes condi- tions and preparations ; and these not merely negative, inas- much as their need of salvation had to be awakened in the minds of men, but positive, in so far as the Messiah, the bloom and flower of humanity, must stand in relation to the root from which he sprang. We must look upon the incarnation of Christ as a fact, for * See /. D. Mickaelis 1 Commentarie? on the Laws of Moses (Smith's translation). MATTHEW I. 2, 3. 169 which preparation was made, by a vein of nobler life flowing through the whole line of our Lord's ancestors. The virgin chosen to be the mother of the Messiah could not spring suddenly from the bosom of a sinful race. Although not without sin, she was the purest of that race. And that she was such, was in consequence of her election by grace her being born of the holiest family of man- kind. As in the development of the human race we observe certain iamilies growing in sin and wickedness, so we find families, also, in Trhich the noblest germs of life are possessed and cherished from generation to generation. Of course, it is not to be understood that families which have been, through grace, specially shielded from the corruption of sin, had no need of salvation ; (this is to be view- ed as absolutely and equally necessary for all men) but as more ready to receive salvation, since, as being of the truth, they more certainly hear God's call. In the following enumeration of the links of the genealogy, Mat- thew omits several, e. g., ver. 8, between Joram and Josias. (See 1 Chron. iii. 11 ; 2 Chron. xxi. 17.) Luke, on the contrary, inserts Cainau in iii. 36, whom the Hebrew text does not mention. Doubt- less, this name is derived from the LXX., which Luke, as a Hellen- ist, used for the most part. The LXX. translators may have received it from tradition. (Respecting such variations of the LXX. from the original Hebrew, as have been admitted into the New Test- ament, see the remarks on Luke iv. 18.) Ver. 2. Throughout the whole genealogical table, Luke appears in the character of a relater merely, while Matthew adds reflections ; he divides the list into classes, and adds special observations. Of Judah he remarks that he had brothers ; probably because the patriarchs of Israel the twelve sons of Jacob appeared to call for special notice. The same remark is made of Jechonias (ver. 11) ; in which passage, however, the term d&A0ot, brethren, must be taken in a wider sense, like MN (Gen. xiii. 8) of father's brothers, as Je- chonias had no actual brothers. (1 Chron. iii. 15, 16.) Ver. 3. It is also peculiar to the genealogy in Matthew, that it several times mentions women a circumstance which did occur in Jewish genealogies, if any thing remarkable gave them special in- terest. (See Surenhusii, f3i(3k. Kara/U. p. 110.) Tamar (Gen. .xxxviii.), Rahab (Josh, ii.), Ruth, Bathsheba, are named by Matthew. Tamar, Rahab,* and Bathsheba, are liable to objection on account of their conduct ; Ruth, as a heathen (Moabitess). That they were nevertheless counted worthy to be among the ancestors of the Mes- * Whether it is Rahab the harlot, that is meant, might seem uncertain, because of the chronology ; she comes too near to Obed and Jesse, David's ancestors ; yet the expres- sion ;} 'Pa^-u/3 (with the article) plainly points to the well-known Rahab mentioned in Josh. ii. Perhaps Matthew has omitted some links. 170 MATTHEW I. 6, 16, 17. siah, must have imparted to them a very special and peculiar signi- ficance. Matthew makes this circumstance still more prominent by the designation in 7775- rov Qvyiov, from her who had belonged to Uriah, in order to point to the wondrous dealings of God's grace in arranging the Messiah's lineage. As examples of the election of grace, of renovation by faith and repentance, and of being received out of heathen families among the people of God, the persons named are noticed even by the Eabbins. (See Wetstein's New Test., on ver. 3 compared with Heb. xi. 31.) But for Matthew's intention to point out these leadings of the divine hand he would have mentioned in preference the celebrated names of Sarah, Kebecca, Leah, in the genealogy of the Messiah. Ver. 6. David, as a principal person, as it were a knot in the genealogical tree of the Messiah, is called emphatically 6 (3aoiXev$, the king, as the type of the Messianic king (Ezek. xxxvii. 24, and elsewhere). A similar break is made afterwards (ver. 11), by the fj^ToiKeoia Bafivk&vos, removal to Babylon, = alxfiaJMoia, captivity. The LXX. use neroiKevia for mVa (Ezek. xxxiii. 21). Ver. 16. The term dvrip, man, husband, in this verse, answers to sponsus (v. 19); according to the Jewish law, the bridegroom was already regarded as the possessor of the bride. (Gen. xxix. 21 ; Deut. xxii. 23, 24.) Matthew expresses himself very carefully ; j fa tyewrjOT] 'Irjaovg, from whom was born Jesus, in order to mark the supernatural character of the generation of Christ ; yevvdv is used as equivalent to TIKTSIV (Luke i. 13). In the phrase 'Itjows 6 ^yofj^vog Xpioros, Jesus who is called Christ, Xpiorog appears evi- dently as the official name. With the exception of this phrase, Matthew almost always uses 6 'Irjoovg, or 6 Xpiorog. It was only gradually that, in the usage of the church, the name expressive of the human character of the Saviour grew up into so close a con- nexion with his official name, that the two have formed a whole, as is particularly the case in the Apostle Paul's writings. (See Gers- dorf's Beitrage zur Sprachcharacteristik, S. 38, ff., 272, ff.) The teyeodai, in the phrase under remark, like Katelodai N^S (on which see comment, on Luke i. 32), has, in this place, the pregnant mean- ing, " to be called, and really to be." In the opposite sense, " to be called, without being." the expression occurs in Ephes. ii. 11, and Matth. xxvii. 17. It has frequently no emphasis, either the one way or the other, as in Matth. xxvi. 14, Mark xv. 7. Ver. 17 Matthew closes his genealogical account with a review of the different divisions which may be made in the generations from Abraham to Christ. He notices three of fourteen gen- erations each,* which may, however, be reckoned in more than one * Whether the number fourteen has a reference to the name David, the Hebrew let- ters of which, reckoned according to the Jewish custom, make up the number fourteen, MATTHEW I. 17. 171 way. That reckoning appears the most convenient, according to which David and Josiah are reckoned twice,* (at the close of one and the beginning of another division), and Jesus omitted. If the person of Jesus is to be reckoned as forming the close of the third division, David only ought to be reckoned twice. The former plan appears to me, however, preferable. It is fitting not to include Jesus himself in the generations, as we ordinarily refrain from doing in reckoning a person's ancestry. Besides, since Matthew, as was remarked, has omitted some links, it cannot be his inten- tion to lay stress on the number fourteen, nor ought this arrange- ment to be regarded as a mere help for the memory. Kather it is his purpose, by means of the equal number, to point out the inward symmetry and regularity of the historical development.f As the whole history of the world moves forward in its development by measured periods, and as, in general, every greater or lesser whole, in the wide creation of Grod, has its inward gradations ot progress, through which it advances to its completion, so there is a regularity in the development of that family also, as it were the in- most life-pulse of mankind, from which the Messial\ was to come. Bengel recognized correctly this fundamental view (in his Gnomon on the passage) ; but the particulars which he adds, as well as his whole chronological system, which he brings into connexion with it, appear to me untenable. (Compare further remarks on this sub- ject in the Commentary on the Kevelation of John.) We must notice too the extraordinary phenomenon of a fam- ily table of three times fourteen generations, and seventy-five an- cestors extending through 2000 or 4000 years, with which the Evan- gelists open the life of Christ. The possibility of exhibiting such a genealogical table, always proceeding in the directest line of descent from father to son, and that, too, of a family long living in the deepest obscurity, would be inexplicable (since 'even the distin- it might be difficult to decide. Such a supposition might, however, agree well enough with the complexion of Matthew's whole description. The number fourteen is moreover to be regarded as twice seven a number which the Scriptures treat as a sacred one. The three times fourteen thus become six times seven, and the seventh seven opens with the person of Christ. * Similar modes of reckoning are met with in other cases. A simple Nazarite vow lasted thirty days, a double one not sixty but only fifty-nine days, because the day in the middle was reckoned twice. The Germans call a week eight days, "acht Tage," but two weeks, fourteen days, " vierzehn Tage ;" while the French call two weeks, " quinze jours." f The omission of some links may be ascribed to the authors of the genealogy in Joseph's family. Matthew took it as he found it, without making any alteration in it, and, of course, his remarks upon it could only apply to its existing form. The want of some of the links can have no influence on the truth of the remarks themselves, inas- much as the fundamental thought, that all things unfold themselves in God's world by measure and number, applies no less to the complete genealogy than to the shortened one. 172 MATTHEW I. 17, 18. guished families, whose genealogies attract the eyes of millions, cannot trace their pedigree a thousand years, and none of them, in a direct line), unless there had been constantly given to the mem- bers of this line a clue by which they were enabled to trace them- selves out in the multitude of families, into which each stock and branch was subdivided, in order to hold fast that member which was destined to continue the succession. This clue was the hope, that the Messiah would be born in the family of Abraham and David. The desire of beholding him, and of participating in his grace and glory, suffered not the attention to weary through a thousand years."* By divine arrangement also, from time to time, as the member that continued the succession might become doubtful, it was again plainly marked out ; so that the hope of the final fulfilment was anew excited and maintained in activity up to its realization. An excel- lent view of the miraculous element discoverable in the construction of these genealogies, is given by Koppen in his book : Die Bibel ein Werk der gottlichen Weisheit (Leipzig, 1798, 2 vols. 8vo., compare B. ii., S. 199, ff.); a new edition of this work is being prepared by Scheibel. 2. THE BIETH OF JESTJS. (Matth. i. 18-25.) Matthew's account of the birth of Jesus is characterized by the greatest simplicity and brevity. It contains not a single chronolog- ical or topographical reference. It assumes that the persons are, in general, already known to the readers. It barely sets forth in sober narrative, without embellishment, the great fact of the supernatural birth of Jesus, points to the fulfilment therein of Old Testament prediction ; and, finally, recounts the providential guidance of Joseph, in this wondrous event. We readily pass by the want of circumstantial vividness, which this part of Mat- thew's narrative, in common with his whole Gospel, discovers, for the sake of that sober air of genuine historical narration, which is prominent thoughout ; a feature which his poetical effusions render less apparent in the narrative of Luke. Those scholars, therefore, are in error, who, while opposed to the general application of the mythical interpretation to the history of Jesus, have yet thought it necessary to admit a mythical element in the history of his birth and childhood. Here, in fact, the supposition appears most strikingly inadmissible, since, if the events did not take place * That the Jews of later time also bestowed great care upon their family registers, is shown by Julius Africanus, as quoted by Euseb. i. 7. Herod had them all sought out and burnt, so that no one should be able to prove that his family was more ancient than the king's. MATTHEW I. 18. 173 just as the Evangelists record them, gross conceptions about the origin of Jesus obtrude themselves upon us. For as Christ is undeniably a historical person, and must therefore have been begotten and born, to affirm the mythical character of the Gos- pel-history, can only favour a view that is destructive of the notion of a Saviour viz., that Jesus came into existence in an impure manner, since Mary was unmarried at the time of his con- ception. The alternative resorted to that Jesus might have sprung from the marriage of Mary and Joseph, is self-refuted by its unhis- torical character ; for if the circumstance, that Mary was with child before her marriage, is to be reckoned among the myths, the cir- cumstances that she gave birth to Jesus, and even that Jesus lived at all, may equally well be reckoned among them. Besides, it appears, on closer consideration, that what apparently most recommends the mythical interpretation 1 of the history of the childhood of Jesus, is rather unfavourable to it. This holds good particularly of the appeal that is made to the traditions of the birth of great men from pure virgins (TrapdEvoyeveig), as of Buddha, Zoroaster, Plato, and others. Such traditions are no more op- posed to the Bible history, than are analogous longings for an expected deliverer. They rather attest the thoroughly correct feeling of the noblest men among different nations, that, in the way of natural generation, and thus from the bosom of humanity alone, nothing can proceed answering to the ideal existing in the human spirit. They witness to the general longing and desire for such a fact to the truth of it in some one historical manifestation. Now, as we have so sober a historical account of the supernatural concep- tion of Jesus in a pure virgin, as that of Matthew, which with even studied plainness repels every fanciful idea ; and, as all the phenomena in the life of Jesus confirm the opinion of his supernatural birth, since there is realized in him, that ideal of all ideals, which could never proceed from sinful humanity and the power inherent in it ; there is perfect historical foundation for the conviction, that this general longing is fulfilled in the person of Jesns. In addition to this, the narrative of the generation of Christ by the Holy Ghost, stands in necessary connexion with his whole destination to be the physician and the Saviour of diseased humanity, since it is impossible that any one who is himself descend- ed from the fallen race of man could have any power to heal the hurt from which they suffer. It was necessary, indeed, that he should be most closely united with men, flesh of their flesh, bone of their bone (Ephes. v. 30), yet, at the same time, without sin. For this reason, he was not begotten by any man from sinful seed, but Mary, touched by divine fire from heaven, received into her bosom the only Begotten of the Father in his assumption of 174 MATTHEW I. 18. humanity. If, then, we recognise in Christ not a mere mani- festation, however exalted, of humanity, but an actual incarna- tion of the Word of Grod (John i. 1, 14), then the narrative of his supernatural generation, so far from astonishing us, seems for the Saviour specially natural and befitting. A Saviour con- ceived in sin sprung from the sinful race of man, is a self-con- tradictory notion ; the very idea of a Saviour requires, that in him there should be manifested something higher, something heavenly, that cannot be derived from what exists in human nature itself.* But, lastly, the mythical view of the history of Christ's childhood must be seen to be untenable for this reason, that Mary, the mother of Jesus, lived considerable time after the ascension. Her state- ments were accessible to each of the apostles any error could immediately have been set aside by her testimony. With respect to the appearances of angels, the mention of which in Matthew's narrative might be regarded as the most important point in proof of its mythical character, we must, in interpreting, chiefly keep in view, that the historian reports as facts the appear- ances of angels in this, as well as in other places of his Gospel. En- tirely after the manner of the Old Testament, Matthew incorpor- ates angelic appearances into his records, as belonging to the actual economy of human affairs ; without giving the slightest hint that he himself regards them as mythical expressions for psychological processes (mere illusions of fancy, the creation of passing cir- cumstances), or as in any other way different from what they seem. The business of the expositor extends beyond the ascer- taining of the author's view only in so far as he not merely expounds, but also vindicates the result of the exposition ; a duty which, in the present position of science, cannot be neglected. The following observations may suffice to meet the requirements of the present case. On the testimony of the Scriptures, we are not to conceive of the angels as separated from men by an impassable gulf; but on the contrary, as actively employed around and in men especially in the faithful. (Heb. i. 14.) Usually, how- ever, their service is an invisible one. The possibility of their be- coming visible lies in the nature of spirit itself, whose indwelling energy involves a capacity of making itself visible. This possibility, however, according to Grod's mode of dealing, becomes a reality only in those cases where it subserves men's good that is, for the pur- * The opinion that we might conceive, that, as the transfer of anything sinful from Mary to Jesus was prevented, it could just as well have been prevented if Joseph had been his father in the ordinary way, only shifts the miracle to a different quarter, without get- ting rid of it. If we actually suppose such an influence of the Holy Ghost to stay the transfer of what was sinful to Jesus, that is no less a miracle than his generation by the Holy Spirit. But wherefore should we make the miracles other than it has pleased the Spirit of God to present them to us ? MATTHEW I. 18. 175 pose of instruction and guidance. For the appearances of angels, like other orjfieta, are intended to give to man the assurance of his being led by God, to save him from his tendencies to error. In this consists their importance in the divine economy ; but, compared with other forms of divine communication, they are manifestly subordinate. The agency of angels has reference principally to phy- sical existence. They are the living supports and springs of motion to the world, for which the modern mechanical view of the world has substituted what are called powers of nature. The world of morals and religion is the scene of the divine Spirit's agency. Comp. Heb. i. 7-9, and 14. On this principle we can explain why to one, an angel appears (sometimes in a dream, some- tunes waking), and to another, the Lord. Caprice is inconceivable in the case ; the different forms of revelation are adapted to the condition of those to whom they are granted. Communica- tion by dream is manifestly the lowest grade of divine revelation ; it is, as it were, one that takes place in an unconscious state ; it is the kind made to Joseph, who discloses in the Gospel narrative, no decidedly spiritual character. From the appear- ances of angels seen in a waking state, the form of communi- cation rises to a revelation received through the word within, which was the usual form of receiving the higher influences in the cases of Moses and all the prophets. The revelation of Jehovah himself, or of the Angel /car' efo^v, appears to be the highest grade, which was granted only to the princes among the saints an Abra- ham, a Jacob, a Moses, and a Paul. The church of Christ needs no longer angelic appearances, as it possesses in the Holy Ghost given to it the very source ot all truth. The form in which angels appeared (with wings, garments, and the like) should be regarded as quite accidental, determined solely by the conditions under which the phenomenon happens to take place. Yet in him who sees the angels, the unclosing of the inward eye is an invariable pre-requisite. Celestial manifestations cannot, like the objects of the outward world, be beheld by every one with the bodily eye. Even though other persons are present, he only for whom the visitation is designed sees the angel. Thus the angels were as- cending and descending upon Jesus at the very moment that he was speaking the words in John i. 51 to the apostles ; but their inward eye was still closed to the transactions of the world of spirits. Every appearance of angels, accordingly, should be conceived not merely as an outward act, but also as an inward effect in the subject who sees it. (See Numb. xxii. 31.) Lastly, Christ, the Lord, had no reve- lation,* but was, not merely a, but the revelation of God in human * It is in appearance only that such passages as Luke xxii. 43, which speaks of an angel appearing to Christ in Gethsemane, are opposed to this thought. For that angel 176 MATTHEW I. 18, 19. nature itself ; on him the angels of God ascended and descended i. e., he is the centre and the medium of connexion between the visi- ble and the invisible world ; so that the entire reciprocal action of these two portions of existence is conducted and ordered by him. (See note on John i. 51). Ver. 18. The first narrative after the genealogy is introduced with a special title, in which 'Iqoov is, in all probability, a spurious addition. (See Gersdorf, ut sup. p. 39.) Teveaig, as the most He- braizing reading, ( = n'nV'un), is preferable to yewijoi^. Mapm, also Mapmju, corresponds to the Hebrew crnw. (Exod. xv. 20 ; Num. xii. 1.) The anxiety of the Evangelist to represent Mary as pure and inno- cent, cannot fail to be noticed. In addition to [i,vr]aTev6eior]g yap rr\^ jttT/rpof avrov, his mother being betrothed, he says expressly, -rrptv 77 ovvsWelv avrovg, before they came together. SvveWelv (parallel with 7rapaAa(3m>, ver. 20, 25) denotes living and dwelling together as husband and wife. EvpioicKadai is not used absolutely for elvai, any more than NSUS is so used ; it rather expresses " being," with the ad- ditional idea of " being recognized as such." (On in irvevfiarog dyiov, see note on Luke i. 35.) Ver. 19. Matthew's account leaves the impression, that Mary did not make known her condition to Joseph. (On this point, see further the remarks on Luke ii. 39.) When he noticed it himself, he sought to put her away without a stir (Aa0pa i. e., without men- tioning the cause in the writing of divorcement). 'A.-noXveiv denotes the formal dismissal by a written declaration. (Deut. xxiv. 1.) Ac- cording to Jewish custom, Joseph treated his betrothed just as his wife ;* but showed himself to be diicaiog, just, upright. This term cannot here, as in Luke i. 6, signify one who diligently fulfils the precepts of the law ; for, according to them, he ought to have pre- ferred an accusation against his betrothed. (Deut. xxii. 23, ff.) But he is called kind, mild. Chrysostom : ^PTJCTT*^, meiK?jg. (Concern- ing the significations of Siitaios and its derivatives, compare the re- marks on Rom. iii. 21.) Hapadeiynari&iv, to make a Trapa&tyjwa, ex- ample, contains the idea of Qaveptioai, make public, but with the accessory idea of disgrace. (Heb. vi. 6.) Thus, therefore, the fa- ther left his only-begotten Son and his mother, just as he does his people in the church, to pass through evil and through good report ! That God permitted even the appearance of having committed sin to rest upon Mary (for her pregnancy must, in any case, have ap- peared premature), must be regaided, in reference to Mary, as a trial revealed nothing to him, but was concerned only with his physical exhaustion ; he ap- peared to him merely for the purpose of strengthening him in body. * Maimonides apud Buxt. de divert, pag. 76. Femina ex quo desponsata est, licet nondum a viro cognita, est uxor viri et, si sponsus earn velit repudiare, oportet ut id faciat libello ropudiL ! MATTHEW I. 20, 21. 177 intended to perfect her faith ; but in reference to Christ, as an ad- ditional trait in the character of his humiliation : he had to appear as sent in the likeness of sinful flesh. (Rom. viii. 3.) Ver. 20. That this purpose, to which he thought himself com- pelled, should have caused a great commotion in Joseph's soul, may be supposed probable. ' But, from these natural processes of mind, and from any dreams or illusions of fancy which they may perhaps have produced, there is distinguished a higher influence, which was imparted to him in a dream, and which determined him in his conduct towards Mary, as narrated ver. 24, 25. Nothing in the text requires us to assume, in this angelic visitation, any thing externally visible ; as Joseph saw it in a dream, the vision was probably internal. The same God, who most expressly warns against 'false dreams (Jer. xxiii. 32, xxix. 8), not unfrequently directs his people by true ones (Numb. xii. 6) ; since, for the sin- cere, who were really concerned for the truth, and for what was well-pleasing to God, he discloses infallible criteria by which to dis- tinguish genuine visions from false ones. Yet as these are modified by individual disposition, they can be reduced to no objective rules ; all divine directions, whether by dreams or any other communica- tions, are dependent upon earnestness and sincerity of heart ; the insincere man seeking to force, as it were, the intimations of the divine will, always hears and sees falsely. ('EvdvpeioOai is, to re- volve in the 6v[i6$, with the exercise of the affections. [See Matth. ix. 4 ; Acts x. 19.] Ken-' ovag occurs only in Matth. ii. 12, 13, 19, 22 ; xxvii. 19. The phrase Kofi 1 vnap is its opposite, but does not occur in the New Testament. 'Ev avry = v -rq KoMa av-nfr , the child unborn, yet reposing in the womb of its mother, but still already existing. The preposition KK, denotes the Holy Spirit to be the creative cause of the child's existence.) Ver. 21. The indefinite neuter -yevvrjdev, offspring, is more pre- cisely characterized as son ; the name to be given him is mentioned, and the meaning of his name, in relation to his appointed work, is set forth. A significance in names is found throughout the Scrip- tures. A name, according to its proper intention, should not be ar- bitrary, but should express the nature of him who bears it. Sin. annihilates this original significancy of names, by extinguishing the capacity of ascertaining the inward essence ; in the principal charac- ters, however, who stand as the bearers of what is noble among our race, the Spirit from above supplied this deficiency. The last words of the verse declare the great and exalted destination of this divinely- begotten one ; he is described as the cromfc, Saviour, (?*"? ) of his people. The expression Aadf, people, - n stands for the Jewish people, in opposition to the edvr], Gentiles, = di'a, although S6vo^ also sometimes denotes the Jewish people. (John xi. 51.) That the VOL. I. 12 178 MATTHEW I. 21, 22, 23. angel, on this occasion, regards the appointment of the Messiah only in relation to the Jewish people is on the same principle upon which Jesus himself so represents it. (See note on Matth. x. 5, 6.) The Jews had, in fact, according to the whole divine economy and plan of salvation, the first call and appointment to the ovTypia, salvation, This by no means excludes its relation to the heathen ; the Saviour's people (Aadf) is, in a wider sense, the whole spiritual Israel all minds desirous of righteousness and truth, among all people, trihes, and tongues. (John x. 16.) The addition of "from their sins," is significant of the character of the promised salvation. The moral import of the redemption to be looked for through the Messiah, which, at the time of Christ, was lost among the common mass, but not among the noble-minded of the people, is here prominent, and can be denied only by such as are blinded by partiality ; for it cor- responds to the expression in the parallel passage (Luke i. 77), the dfaais r&v dfiapTt&v, forgiveness of sins. 2waei duo r&v dfiapritiv, he shall save from their sins, denotes, as it were, their removal i. e., their extinction. To refer dpapria, sin, to the punishment of sin (and, indeed, to the most external, the oppression of the Komans), is incorrect, for this reason, that a^apr/a never does, and never can, signify the punishment of sin without the sin, but only together loitli it. Ver. 22, 23. The following are evidently not the words of the angel, but of the Evangelist, who refers his Jewish readers to the Old Testament, in order to prove to them, that what was new in the Gospel, already existed in the sacred foundations on which their faith rested. The Lord himself appears as the effective cause (vno by, like KK, out of, above, is used of the source, the origin) ; the prophet appears only as the intermediate organ. (Am, as distin- guished from VTTO, denotes the instrument, by means of which some- thing is accomplished.) But, with respect to the formula : Iva or oncog 7r/l?7pa)#g, that it might be fulfilled, which appears to be a stand- ing one, particularly with Matthew, it is evident, in the first place, that the New Testament writers themselves understood it, ac- cording to the natural meaning of the words ; that is to say, TT^povadai, to be fulfilled, in the sense of something that was pro- mised in time past, being realized at the present time ; so that n^ovadai always supposes a previous promise. The conjunction Iva cannot be translated so that, denoting a result (itcftariK^'), but always expresses an intention (rekiK&g), to the end that, in order that. In the whole formula it is evident, that the event being intended, is just what is meant to be brought into notice ; and TrkTjpovadai itself necessarily leads us to this idea. We may, there- fore, supply VTTO rov KVQIOV, by the Lord, after rovro JKJOVEV, this took place, since that which took place must not be regarded as MATTHEW I. 22, 23. 179 accidental. The formula does receive its simple grammatical ex- planation in those cases where interpreters consider actual Old Testament prophecies referred to ; but when such are not found, a wider sense is wont to be given to the phrase in this way : ' The result is such, that the words of the Old Testament may be suitably applied to it/ This explanation is defended on the ground, that Iva, that, is used in the New Testament to express the event (KJ3aTiK&$ ;)* but from the fact that Iva may be so used, it does not follow that it must be so taken in some of the passages which contain this phrase. This expression, which ap- pears so constantly in the New Testament, can have but one and the same sense in all the places where it is used. To ap- peal to the custom universally prevalent among the Jews, of apply- ing passages of the Old Testament in relations quite different from those involved in their original connexion, cannot in this case be allowed ; because, in the first place, it is inconceivable that the sacred writers should have accommodated themselves to a custom so unmeaning, and so much exposed to abuse ; and then, further, even if such were the case, the meaning of the phrase, Iva TrkrjpuOq, that it might be fulfilled, would not be altered, since, if the New Testament writers did follow this habit, they must have held, in connexion with it, the principle out of which it arose viz., that the Scriptures contain endless references, and can, therefore, be applied to all possible circumstances. The Rabbi im- agines it really to be so with his quotations of Scripture (nonsensi- cal as they may be) ; and agreeably to this view of the multifarious applicability of the contents of the sacred Scriptures, he believes that he finds a real fulfilment of the Bible language where he ap- plies it. In my opinion, therefore, it is nothing but doctrinal pre- judice which gave occasion to an interpretation varying from the * The question of the use of Iva is of great importance doctrinally. It comes under special notice in the subject of predestination, as well as in that of the prophecies from the Old Testament. (See observations on Matth. xiii. 14, 15 ; John xii. 39, 40.) But it is worth noticing, that to assert that Iva is very frequently used eK/Jart/coif, tends to take away the force of many passages, no lees than is done by asserting that it is never so used. This is the case, for instance, with John xvii. 3, where the words CUD; &as, as being his wife. (Ilapflevof, equivalent to msVs, unmarried woman, is indeed in itself different from rfcsna, T i -' T :' which necessarily denotes pure virginity ; but the word wsV?, too, may, and must, in this case, be taken for a pure virgin.) The pas- * See Hamann, in the history of his conversion (Werke Th. i., S. 211. ff.): "I found the unity of the divine will in the redemption by Jesus Christ, inasmuch as all history, all miracles, all God's commands and works, tended to this centre." In Hamann's works, a spiritual exposition, like that which the writers of the New Testament employ, may be seen in a modern author. Bengel also says very truly (Gnomon ad. h. 1), " Ssepe in N. T. allegantur vaticinia, quorum contextum prophetarum tempore non dubium est, quin auditores eorum ex intentione divina interpretari debuerint de rebus jam turn praesentibus. Eadem vero intentio divina, longius prospiciens, sic formavit oralionem, ut magis proprie deinceps ea conveniret in tempora Messiae, et hanc, intentionem divinam apostoli nos do- cent, nosque dociles habere debent" MATTHEW I. 22, 23. 181 sage, then, affords the natural sense, that Isaiah gives Ahaz the sign, that she who is now his betrothed, and will soon be his wife, shall bear a son, named Immanuel ; and before this son shall have come to knowledge (that is, in two or three years), his prophecies shall be fulfilled. Thus the King Ahaz had given to him a sign (nis) close at hand, and intelligible ; but, at the same time, the birth of Immanuel had its higher reference to the Messiah, by whom the prophecy was fulfilled in a far higher sense, since he was born of a virgin, and as a sign (HN) for the unbelieving world, which Ahaz represents. This agrees well with the symbolizing manner in which Isaiah named his sons throughout. He represented a whole chain of ideas and facts, which were especially important to him, from the circumstances of the times, in the names of his children, one of whom was called Shear-Jashub (Isa. vii. 3) ; the second, Maher-shalal- hash-baz (viii. 3) ; and the third, Immanuel. Thus he formed with his family, as it were, an embodied and personified circle of ideas, in which his spirit moved. Such a form of teaching is quite in agree- ment with the prophetic agency ; and, at the same time, Matthew was perfectly justified in referring the event of the birth of Im- manuel to the birth of Christ, because that parallel was intended by the Spirit of prophecy himself* The words of Matthew, final- ly, do not follow the LXX. precisely, and differ from the original, I have not been convinced of the untenableness of the interpretation just given to the passage Isa. vii. 14, even by the able defence of the opposite view viz., that no in- ferior subject is intended by the prophet's words set up by Hengstenberg in his Christo- logy, vol. i., p. 307, ff. It seems to me that he has not succeeded in solving the difficulty, how the reference to the Messiah could be a sign for Ahaz. Looking at it free from pre- judice, one is necessarily led to expect that Ahaz must have had something given him, which he would live to witness. It is very forced to refer the period of two or three years spoken of to the coming of the Messiah, born centuries after. At any rate, the pro- phecy could not then have any meaning for Ahaz. The reasons brought forward against my view, seem to me unimportant; for when Hengstenberg reminds us, that there is no likeness between the birth of Immanuel in a natural manner, and that of the Messiah in a supernatural manner, it is certainly true that Matthew lays stress on the term -apdevof, which in the prophet has not the emphasis ; butuch a free use of prophecies is not un- common in the New Testament, particularly in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and is quite safe when the passage so used is a real prophecy or a type, as in this instance. In this passage the unity of the reference lies in the name Immanuel; Isaiah's son had the name, but Christ the essence. He was God manifested, whom the former merely represented. Besides, discordant features are necessarily found in every type or symbol, for otherwise it would not be a type, but the thing itself. All prophecies of Scripture have, therefore, points of similarity enough to be understood by him who needs them, and who because of his need, seeks for them; but likewise dissimilarities enough to be misunderstood by him who will not perceive. In the main, I agree in my view of Isaiah vii. 14, with Urn- Ireit's Observations in the Studien und Kritiken, year 1830, H. iii. S. 638, ff. The late Pro- fessor Kleinerfs hypothesis in TholucKs Anzeiger, year 1832, No. 25, ff., that we should conceive the facts respecting the virgin and Immanuel as a vision which God shewed to Ahaz by the prophet, would in fact explain several circumstances, if there were but one word in the text intimating that this was the account of a vision. "Without such an in- timation, however, the supposition of a vision remains purely gratuitous. 182 MATTHEW I. 24, 25. also, in translating f\xy r (thou shaft call, 2d pers. sing, fern.) by KaMaovm, they shall call. Ver. 24, 25. Joseph was in every thing obedient to the divine command, believed in the purity of his wife, took her to himself, and gave the child, after his birth, the appointed name. But the Evan- gelist adds a remark worthy of notice, in the words, ova lytvuoKEv avrr)V, twf ov KTSKS rbv vlbv avrrjg rbv rrpwroroicov, he knew her not until she bore, &c. It is unnecessary to prove, that in these words yiv&oKKiv = T!, to know, is used of connubial connexion ; the only question is, whether the meaning of the word is, that it did not take place in Joseph's marriage at all, or merely that it did not previous to the birth of Jesus ? The words suggest, at first sight, the latter, particularly t'w? ov, until, and npuroroKog, first-born. The former appears to suppose connubial intercourse after the birth of Jesus ; the latter seems to say that Mary had several children. As, however, it is not probable, from the Gospel-history, that Mary had other children (see note on Matth. xiii. 55, for a more particular account), no conjlusion can be drawn from the word -np^rorono^ to compel us to suppose, that afterwards connubial intercourse between Joseph and Mary took place. The term is merely equivalent to n'.ss or Dfpiz^ in Hebrew, which may signify either the first among others, or the only child. nSsa is the first son, preceding the birth of any daughter : for him the mother must offer the sacrifices for the first- born, while as yet entirely ignorant whether she would have other children. (It should be particularly noticed also, that the expression is TTpwTOTo/cof avTTjc;, HER first-born. The term has, of course, quite a different meaning in the phrases, Trpwroro/co^ iv TroA/LoZf ddety>olg } first- born among many brethren (Rom. viii. 29), IK r&v vnp&v } from the dead (Rev. i. 5), ndo^ KTiaeug, of every creature (Col. i. 15). So also in Heb. i. 6, where the term stands alone. (See the Commentary on these passages.) The formula eo$- ov, until, =. *s~iy does not neces- sarily assert, that what is said not to have taken place before a certain time, did happen after it. In the Old Testament, this is proved by such passages as Gen. viii. 7, 2 Sam. vi. 23. In the New Testament, indeed, none of the passages quoted in proof are quite conclusive e.g., Matth. xxii. 44 (compared with 1 Cor. xv., 28), Matth. v. 26, xviii. 30. But it is in the very nature of the particle, that it does not necessarily affirm that what had not taken place up to a certain point of time, has taken place since. Al] depends on the circumstances aud relations. (If we were to say, we waited till midnight, but no one came, that does not imply, that after midnight some one came ; it means, no one came at all.)* We must say, therefore, that from this passage no conclusion * But to say that no one came until midnight, would naturally imply that some one came after midnight. The moral consideration alleged against Mary's having other chil- dren than Jesus, viz., that it was fitting that the Messiah should terminate his line, can- not have much weight against positive grounds. On this principle, why did Mary marry at all ? Why did Providence select a virgin who was actually betrothed ? [K. MATTHEW II. 1. 183 can be drawn either for the one view or the other ; Matthew merely states as fact " Till the birth of Jesus he knew not Mary." It is evident, however, that after what he had passed through, Joseph might justly think that his marriage with Mary had another pur- pose than that of begetting children. Perhaps the words of the Evangelist are framed purposely thus, to prevent any inference that might be drawn from these events against the sanctity of marriage ; yet it still seems consonant with the nature of things, that the last female descendant of David, in the family of which the Mes- siah was born, closed her family with this last and eternal scion. (The opposite view is defended by Stier, Andeutungen fiir gliiubiges Schriftverstandniss, Th. i. S. 404, ff.) 3. ARRIVAL OF THE MAGI FLIGHT INTO EGYPT MURDER OF THE CHILDREN RETURN TO GALILEE. (Matth. ii. 1-23.) Ver. 1. It is only in passing, and as a supplementary remark, that Matthew states that Jesus was born at Bethlehem, in the time of Herod* (that is, the Great, the son of Antipater), while he says no- thing definitely of the residence of Joseph and Mary : it is hence clearly seen, that the Evangelist, in his account of Christ's life, in- tentionally disregards the relations of place as well as of time a fact not unimportant in the apparent contradictions between Matthew and Luke, which are presently to be noticed. (BT/fl/Ut^, Bethle- hem, = BfiV rva lay two hours,f or six Roman miles south-west of Jerusalem. The town was originally named Ephrath. [Gen. xxxv. 19, xlviii. 7.J The addition, ri\q 'lovdaiag, of Judea, is to dis- tinguish it from another Bethlehem in Galilee, in the tribe of Zebu- lun, mentioned in Joshua xix. 15. As being David's birthplace, it is called simply, " City of David." See Luke ii. 4, 11.) The most important circumstance in Matthew's eyes is, that the new-born Messiah received at once the homage of the Magi. (Mayoi, Magi, is well-known to have been originally the name of the learned class among the Parsees. In Jer. xxxix. 3, the term att-d] is used of the head of the College of the Magi. The Greek explanation of the word, as given in Suidas, fahoaofyoi, ik66eoi sages, devout persons, is less correct than that which explains * As Matthew gives no more definite statement as to the person of Herod, several princes of which name reigned in Palestine (see the first chronological table before the Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles), it is clear that he supposes his readers to possess some knowledge of the circumstances, which accounts for several peculiarities in his narrative. f [Stunde, hour, is used in Germany as a measure of distance. It is something less than three English miles.] Tr. 184 MATTHEW II. 1. it, great, excellent, from a Persian root. [In the Persian ar- row-headed inscriptions appears the word Maghu, Magian. See Theod. Benfey, die Pers. Keilinschriften, Leipz. 1847, p. 89.] In later times, the name pdyoq, Magian, like mathematicus, Chal- daeus, was used of all who were attached to occult science es- pecially of astrologers. See Acts xiii. 6.) This narrative is most simply explained, if we regard the Magi as adherents of the Zoroas- trian worship of light, which, even before the time of Christ, was widely spread through western Asia. Pornpey found the worship of Mithras, a branch of the Zend religion, among the Cilician pirates. Of. Pint. vit. Pomp. cap. 37. The expression OTTO awroAwv, from the east, is hence best left in the indefinite generality proper to it ; it applies, like D-jsto, to all that is situated east of Palestine to adjacent Arabia, and even to the more distant Persia. Now, the hypothesis that these Magi were Parsees, is highly probable ; first, because there are remarkable germs of truth in the Zend system itself e. g., the idea of a Sosiosh an expected Saviour ; and fur- ther, because an intermixture of Jewish ideas is more easily con- ceivable in their case than in that of any other nation. But such an intermixture must on this occasion be supposed, since the Per- sians expected their Saviour from the family of Zoroaster ; but these Magi come to seek for the King of the Jews (ver. 2).-f- The circum- stance, too, that a star guided the Magi, points to the pursuit of astronomy, which was not unknown among the Parsees. With re- spect to the statement that about the time of the birth of Christ, the prophecy of the appearance of a great universal monarch in the East was spread far and wide, even among the heathen (Suet. Vesp. c. 4. Tacit. Hist. V. 13. Joseph. B. J. i. 5, 5 ; vii. 31) a proof how great events, affecting the whole of mankind, are ushered in by a sort of presentiment this vague expectation can scarcely be used in explanation of the visit of the Magi. Their faith rested clearly on firmer props than so indefinite a rumour could supply. They recognized in the new-born one, whom they were seeking, not merely a ruler, but the Saviour himself their Sosiosh. But, substantially correct as was their knowledge, we must still beware of ascribing sharply defined doctrinal ideas to those believing strangers4 The jy, rising, east, used of a quarter of the world, appears like Avoficf setting west, chiefly in the plural (see Matth. viii. 11, uird avaro'Xtiv KOL Svapuv), perhaps be- cause of the daily return of the rising and setting sun. f These Magi might also be thought to be Jews, perhaps of the dispersed ten tribes ; but the words, EaaAeiif TUV '[ovoaiuv, evidently imply that they were not Jews. J That this visit of the Magians was ordered by Divine Providence, had a special significance, and was accompanied, perhaps, or followed by the germs of a sincere faith in them, cannot be doubted. Yet it may well be doubted whether Olshausen does not press the narrative quite too far. Did they not commence their journey because the appear- ance of an unwonted star led them to believe in the birth of some royal personage ; and come to Palestine because the star overhung that land, just as it subsequently guided MATTHEW II. 1, 2. 185 early church, moreover, looked upon these Magi as the representa- tives of the heathen world, which, in them, offered its homage to the Lord a rational thought, full of deep truth ! Agreeably to Old Testament hints of this fact (Ps\ Ixviii. 30, 32 ; Ixxii. 10 ; Isa. xlix. 7 ; Ix. 3, 6), the Magi were early taken to be kings, and, in the legend, bore the names of Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar. It was an easy step for the advocates of myths in the New Tes- tament, to view this occurrence of the appearance of the Magi, before the new-born Kedeemer, as a philosophical myth, without any historical foundation whatever, by which tradition intended to express the idea awakened by the passages of the Old Testament just referred to, that the Messiah would -exercise a universal influ- ence, extending beyond the limits of the Jewish people. But it is at variance with this view that Matthew is the Evangelist in whom this universal character of Christ's mission is least prominent. As related by contemporaries, this narrative if destitute of historical truth, could be nothing but gross deception. Ver. 2. The words which the family memoirs here employed by Matthew attribute to the Magi, indicate a knowledge of the special relation in which the new-born one stood to the Jewish people. The " King of the Jews" is not a king who rules over the Jews alone the Magi represent their own subjection under his (spiritual) power by their symbolical action but a King, who springs from the Jews, and from them, as a centre, extends his kingdom. Thus it expresses properly the true idea, " salvation is of the Jews" (John iv. 22). As the sure sign of his birth, they mention the sight of his star (eido;j,ev avrov rbv daripd). They knew, therefore, that a heavenly sign would stand connected with the earthly appearance of this (spiritual) king. That great events on earth had their correspond- ing appearances in the heavens, which shewed themselves principally in stars, was a very general opinion of antiquity (see, for instance, Justin. Hist, xxxvii. 2. Sueton. vit. Cses. c. 88), and not without truth, though it commonly served the purposes of superstition.* In the life of the Saviour, the surmise expressed in this opinion at- tained to reality and truth. In what this axifa, governor, expresses rather the idea of guiding to an object, than of laying down law and restraining by force ; the additional clause TToip-avel rbv Aaov pov, shall rule, be a shepherd to, my people, which is wanting in the Hebrew text, is perhaps inserted from 2 Sam. v. 2, another prophetic passage. The ideas of governing and tending are closely related, and are often interchanged ; yet noipaiveiv, to tend as a shepherd, gives greater prominence to the ideal char- acter of the true ruler, who has the good of his subjects at heart, than fiaoikeveiv, to reign. The special relation of this shepherd to Israel (Aaoc = &J>, people, the opposite of diia nations'), is to be re- garded partly as again expressive of the view most readily suggest- ed of the influence of the Messiah (see notes on Matth. i. 21 ; x. 6 ; xv. 24), and partly as inclusive of its further extension to the whole spiritual Israel, scattered among all nations. (See note on Matth. viii. 11 ; Eom. ii. 28, 29.) Ver. 7. In order to smother all political excitement, the sus- picious tyrant kept the arrival of the Magi, and the purpose of their journey a secret using them, as he imagined, for his own ends. After having ascertained from his doctors the place of the birth, he tried to discover the time likewise. This he connected with the ap- pearance of the star [fycp$um rov %povov rov (JXUVOUKVOV dorepog), but whether from the hints of the Magi or not, is uncertain. From ver. 16, therefore, we might conclude that the star had already been seen some time perhaps, since the time of the conception of Jesus. ('AKpi(36u, see ver. 16, = dicpip&g t^era^y, ver. 8.) Ver. 8, 9. By his outward smoothness Herod hoped the more surely to deceive the simple men, and induce them to return to him; but God preserved them and the young child from his malice. (TlopevEuQat, to go, is used certainly according to the analogy of the Hebrew T|^, but is not redundant, as the inquiry in this case in- volved a journey.) The relation of the travelling wise men to the star, as stated in ver. 9, is not clear. First of all, with respect to Trpof/yev avrovg, preceded, led them on, it is not necessary to con- clude thence that the star had disappeared, and then re-appeared. MATTHEW II. 9-11. 189 The matter may be easily imagined thus the star, which they had seen rise in the east (lv ry avaro^, ver. 2) they discovered, having in its course changed its position, in the direction which they were to pursue from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. It continued, therefore, to precede them as a guiding star. (Ryodyeiv) is taken in its proper signification.*) But what follows is more difficult IWuv ticrr) KTrdvd) ov (sc. TOTTOV) f/v TO iraidiov, it came and stood over, etc., where mention is made of the star moving and arriving at a destined point. Now it is not easy to see how a star in the heavens, whether a comet or a constellation, could even apparently rest over a house. A fiery appearance in the air would more easily account for this, were it at all probable that any thing of that sort could be designated by the term dcmfp, star. The whole of Matthew's description evidently indicates a star that shone for a considerable time. It is simplest to take the expression, kWuv ear?/, it came and stood, as the natural conception of their childlike feeling; so that the usual mode of inquiry after the child Jesus was not meant to be excluded, while the result, as well as the beginning, of the journey is still ascribed to the heavenly guide.f Ver. 10, 11. The remark again made, that the Magi saw the star (I66vreg rov do-tpa), is not by any means to be referred to what precedes, so that Idovreg, seeing, would be taken for a pluperfect. It is better to refer the expression to the ecm/, stood, before men- tioned, so that the view of the star, so to speak, terminating its office, filled them with a peculiarly joyful surprise. ('Exdprjcav %apdv } rejoiced with joy, is a familiar Hebraism [see 1 Sam. iv. 5] ; some- thing analogous to which is found in all languages. The periphrasis of the superlative with ofiodpa, exceedingly, [^&*?], is also a well-known Hebraism.] In the description of the visit of the Magi, Mary only, the mother of the child, is mentioned. Joseph recedes quite into the back-ground throughout the whole Gospel-history, and pre- sents no perceptible spiritual character. (The reading eW, saw, is every way preferable to the evpov, found, of the Textus Receptus.) Two things are distinctly noticed in the actions of the Magi ; first, the TTpocKvveiv, pay homage, ivorsliip, then the presenting of their gifts. We may imagine both included in one in this way, that they * Ideler (ut sup.) explains this of the approach, or dispersion of the planets, which seemed, while in conjunction, to form one large star. f If we take literally the preceding account, first that the star guided them to Pales- tine, and then to Bethlehem, what insuperable difficulty in supposing that it indicated the house ? It was evidently an extraordinary, probably a miraculous phenomenon, and there seems no reason for receiving one part of the narrative, and staggering at another. The birth of Jesus as recorded both by Matthew and Luke is signalized by many miracles : and assuredly the moral significance of this transaction, as homage rendered by the Heathen world through its representatives to the new-born King of the world, forma quite as fitting an occasion for a miracle as the announcement to an humble company of Jewish shepherds. K. 190 MATTHEW II. 10-12. desired to testify their dependence in the presentation itself. The action was to be npoa^opd, an offering, a solemn recognition of the superior character of the new-born one, as also the prophecy in Isaiah Ix. 6, intimates. Upowcvviiaat, to pay homage, therefore, answering to the Hebrew hnn> is no proof, so far as the words go, of the view entertained by the Magi of the young child's dignity. The word often denotes nothing more than the well-known oriental form of political homage. Still the connexion of the narrative makes it certain, that the Magi ascribed a spiritual character to the child ; and their homage, combined with the ceremony of the rrpootyopd, offering, acquires a more spiritual meaning. Only we must not, as before observed, by any means ascribe to the Magi any doctrinal ideas of the divinity of Jesus ; but only a dim conception of the divine power accompanying and resting on him. We may say, they worshipped God, who had made this child for salvation to them also, but not the child. Finally, as regards the gifts presented to the child (and his mother), we are not at liberty to conclude from the fact of their being Arabian products, that the Magi came from Arabia ; the articles were common throughout the east, as being necessary to their worship, for gold also was among the gifts usually presented to the gods. The idea of many expositors, that these valuable presents must needs be brought to Mary in her poverty, to aid her jour- ney into Egypt (ver. 13), may not be altogether inadmissible ; the Gospel-history shows that, in after life also, the Saviour committed himself in reference to his bodily support, to the love of his friends. (See note on Luke viii. 3.) (The term Orjaavpog treasure, signifies, like IS'IN, Deut. xxviii. 12, " vessel," " place of keeping ;" the idea of "what is kept" "costly" is the derived one. Aifiavog - ns'aV, sig- nifies " incense," the produce of a balsamic plant of Arabia. In the Old Testament the term is found very frequently, because incense is so often mentioned in connexion with the sacrifices ; in the New it occurs only once more viz., in Rev. xviii. 13. Sfivpva = ifa, myrrh, is a similar product, obtained from a tree like the acacia. [Ex. xxx. 23 ; Psalm xlv. 8.] Incense and myrrh were also used medicinally by the ancients ; but such a use of the presents is here totally inad- missible. On the history of the Magi in general see Kleuker's Bibl. Sympathieen, S. 36, ff.; and Hamann's Kreuzziige des Philologen, Werke, Th. ii., S. 135, ff.) Ver. 12. As above, so here also, we should observe that the thoughts of the Magi, produced within them by natural reflection on the circumstances, must not be confounded with the higher impulse, which induced their determination not to return to Herod. (Xp rieiv signifies, in profane authors, "to manage public affairs" ' give answers and commands ;" xPW ar ^ a ^ ai } " to receive commands." MATTHEW II. 12-15. 191 In the Hellenistic Greek, the term appears in the same signification, but with reference to divine transactions ; xprj^ari^eiv, " to give di- vine commands," Heb. xii. 25 ; xpjifiari&odai, " to receive divine commands." So in the New Testament, ver. 22 of this chapter, and elsewhere ; and in the Old, in Jer. xxvi. 2 ; xxix. 18. Lastly, it means, also, merely "to call" [Acts xi. 26 ; Kom. vii. 3], a meaning quite common in profane writers.) Ver. 13, 14. As the Saviour, after he had attained to the full consciousness of divinity (Gottesbeivusstseyri), did and said nothing of himself, but always at the instance of the Father (John viii. 28), so the divine agency prevailed among the circle that surrounded him during his infancy, and before this consciousness was yet fully de- veloped. The history of Jesus, even the child Jesus, is a divine history. By divine impulse, therefore, Joseph brings the holy child with his mother to Egypt.* (On the appearance of the angel "in a dream," [/car' ovap,] see i. 20. Ver. 13, lodt, be, is imperative from et{j,i, and not to be confounded with a similar form from olda. ~E,lvai is to be taken here, as rrn is also used, in the sense of "being continu- ously" i. e.," remaining." " Till I shall tell thee" intimates another appearance to be looked for. The whole narrative of the flight indi- cates haste and secrecy [wicrog, by night, ver. 14] in their removal. The expression, TO -rraiSiov nal rfjv \w\Tiqa avrov, the child and its moth- er, delicately intimates that Joseph was only in the place of a father.) Tradition names Matarea as the place where Jesus is said to have re- mained with Mary in Egypt. The temple of Onias (at Leontopolis) stood in the neighbourhood a circumstance which made many Jews resort thither. Ver. 15. The observation, that Jesus remained with his mother in Egypt till the death of Herod, is, as a chronological date, not un- important, since the death of Herod, and the beginning of Arche- laus's reign (ver. 22), can be accurately determined. True, the date is not void of uncertainty from the circumstance, that the Evangelist does not remark, either how old the child Jesus was at the time his mother fled with him into Egypt, or how long he was there ; nor do the passages, Luke iii. 1, 23, remove the uncertainty. Yet thus much is certain from this passage, that Jesus must have been born before the death of Herod ; and agreeably to this fact, the vulgar Christian era is at least three years too late. (See Paulus in his Commentary on the passage.) The investigations of Sancle- mente and Ideler, as was observed, place the birth of Christ as long as six years before our era. But with respect to the flight into Egypt, the Evangelist refers to an Old Testament prophecy viz., Hosea xi. 1. The Greek words in Matthew differ from the text of * On the flight into Egypt, see Schleiermacher's excellent sermon in the Magazine edited by him, JRhdr and Schudero/, vol. vi., Madgeburg, 1829, S. 301, ff. 192 MATTHEW II. 15, 16. the LXX. in a remarkable manner ; the latter reads, ! ALJVTTTOV fjiereKa^eaa TO, TEKva avrov sc. rov 'I means, first, " to deride," " to jeer at ;" then, to "deceive," "to beguile," since deceiving often involves derision. Qvpovodai = nnh, to burn with rage, does not occur elsewhere. The immediate neighbourhood of the town, the " borders" [dpta = enVo, suburbs, precincts], were included in Herod's cruel order.) The relation in which this note of time stands to the account of the Magi (ver. 7), makes it probable that the star appeared before the birth of Jesus, and that the Magi did not arrive immediately after his birth (see note on Luke ii. 40) ; in which case Herod -might think it necessary, in order to be sure, to extend the limit to within a little of two years. (Ate-nfc, bimus, two-year old; dirb disrovg stands for tiier&v, from the two-year old children downwards.) The fact of the murder of the children at Bethlehem has been doubted, because nei- ther Josephus nor any other historian makes mention of it ;* and further, because it is a cruelty scarcely conceivable even for a Herod, and that too with no sufficient motive, as simpler means for accom- plishing the removal of the child would have suggested themselves to * Macrobius (Saturn, ii. 4) mentions the occurrence, but mixe3 it up with the murder of Herod's own son a confusion which might easily occur, as no other royal offspring could be thought of, who could have been the object of Herod's persecutions. MATTHEW II. 16-20. 193 him. But, in the first place, as respects the silence of the historians on an event so unimportant in a political point of view (the only view taken by all ancient historians), as the death of some children in a small Jewish town must have seemed to them ; it is the less surpris- ing, because, according to verse 7, the whole matter was kept secret as to its real connexion. Then, too, the murder of a few children was lost among the atrocities of a Herod, as a drop is lost in the sea. The number of those slaughtered on this occasion has been errone- ously thought to be great, and the deed itself a horrible massacre ; whereas, in the nature of things, there could be but a few children under two years in a little town like Bethlehem, and these might be put out of the way without any stir. Lastly, the remark that the affair is without adequate motive, since Herod could easily have sent secret messengers to accompany the Magi, appears indeed to be not altogether unfounded. Yet we must consider, that we are not to transfer modern police arrangements to antiquity ; and, again, that, according to the king's intention, the birth of the King of the Jews was to be kept a secret, and he thought he might repose full confidence in the Magi ; and, lastly, that in the history of all times there occur unaccountable oversights, which shew that a higher hand overrules history. Ver. 17, 18. The Evangelist finds in this event also the fulfil- ment of a prophecy, Jer. xxxi. 15. The prophet's language refers, in its connexion, to the carrying away of the Israelites by way of Kama, to Babylon, by Nebuzaradan (Jer. xl. 1); and Rachel, Jacob's beloved wife, the progenitrix of Israel, is represented as weeping over this misfortune. This circumstance of the mother bewailing her unhappy children, was regarded by the Evangelist as repeated in the murder of the children at Bethlehem, and, indeed, with increased force, because it was the Messiah, in whose neighbour- hood, and on whose account, this aflliction happened. While, in general, the forefather of the people is mentioned, the mother is here; brought forward as bewailing those who were sacrificed to save the life of the Messiah, because sympathizing sorrow for the pains of her tender charge, shews itself more naturally in the mother. The words of the. quotation deviate again from the translation of the LXX., yet not so as to discover an independent construction of the original ; the pas- sage is quoted from memory. (w?, voice, =^ is here lamentation, cry of sorrow. The town Rama, in the tribe of Benjamin, lay scarcely a-half day's journey from Bethlehem (Jud. xix. 2, 9, 13). It might, therefore, be put for Bethlehem itself, as, in specifying this place, it was only intended to designate the land of Palestine in general. Besides which, Rachel was buried in the neighbourhood (Gen. xxxv. 19 ; xlviiu 7) ; so that VOL. I. 13 194 MATTHEW II. 20-22. it seemed as if the ancestral mother of the nation was disturbed in her peaceful grave by the cruelty of Herod.) Ver. 19, 20. The return from Eygpt is again instigated by spe- cial divine admonition ; and the death of the tyrant is assigned as the determining circumstance. The words redv/iitaoi yap K. r. A., for they are dead, &c., contain a reference to Exod. iv. 19, where noth- ing but the formula Iva Tthrjpudq, that it might be fulfilled, is want- ing to make it completely parallel with the previous references to Old Testament passages. What was there said of Moses and his flight from Pharaoh, Matthew interprets in reference to Jesus ; so that Moses appears here as a type of him. The plural oL fyrovvres, they that sought, applies to Herod as the representative of all God's enemies in general. (The expression " land of Israel" not " land of Judah" readily suggests Galilee, which, according to verse 22, the parents of Jesus chose for their dwelling. Zrjrelv TTJV ipv%TJv, to seek the life, corresponds to ws'ns *c3-) Ver. 21. The time of the return of Jesus from Egypt is not indeed stated ; but, as it was an event consequent on Herod's death,* his residence there cannot have been of long continuance. This circumstance of itself, therefore, is sufficient to overthrow the hypothesis that Jesus obtained his knowledge from Egyptian philo- sophers, which stands, too, in absolute contradiction to the idea of a Saviour. It must have been in very early childhood that Jesus re- turned to Palestine, at which period the depths of Egyptian wisdom cannot have been accessible to him. Ver. 22. On their return, report represented Archelaus to the holy family as not less cruel than his father Herod. They chose Galilee, therefore, for their residence, where Antipas reigned. Au- gustus, who confirmed the testament of Herod, appointed Archelaus Ethnarch of Judea, Idumea, and Samaria ; Philip obtained Batanea and Auranitis ; Antipas, Galilee and Perea.f Archelaus held his dominion only nine years. At the expiration of that period, Au- gustus deposed him, banished him to Vienna (in Gaul), and made Judea a Roman province. (Joseplius, Ant. xvii. 10, 12 ; xviii. 1.) (ra/UAa/'a V^J) ^Y^*. signifies, like nss, circuit, district. The name in full is s^an V^Va, yakikaia dl/lo^uAtov, or y. rdv sdvtiv, Ga- lilee of the Gentiles. [1 Mace. v. 15 ; Matth. iv. 15 ; Isa. ix. 1.] As in this district heathenism was much mixed with Judaism, the strict exclusive character of the Jewish people appeared in a milder form ; but for this very reason the inhabitants of Galilee were despised among the rest of the Jews. [Matth. xxvi. 69 ; John i. 46 ; vii. 52.) According to Joseplius [de Bell. Jud. iii. 2], the district was divided * On the death of Herod, seo Euseb. H. E. i. 6, 8 ; and, in respect of the chronology, the detailed discussion in Dr. Paulus 1 Exegetisches Handbuch, i., H. i., S. 227, ff. f On this point, seo the first chronological table to the Acts of the Apostles. MATTHEW II. 23. 195 into Upper and Lower Galilee ; the former bordered on Tyre and Sidon, the latter on the Jordan and the Lake of Gennesaret. Tiberias first, and afterwards Sephoris, was the capital of Galilee. 'EKEI, there, is put for titEias, thither, like taw for ny. So, often, in the New Testament.) Ver. 23. In Galilee, the parents of Jesus took up their residence in the town of Nazareth. (The preposition elg is to be connected with eWtiv, and not, therefore, to be confounded with iv. When iv is joined with words of motion, or e/? with words denoting rest, we are not to suppose an interchange of particles, but rather that the idea of previous or subsequent rest or motion is to be supplied, according as the case requires. See Winer's Grammar of the New Testament, translated by Agnew and Ebbeke, 51.) This little town of Gali- lee, of which neither the Old Testament nor Josephus makes mention, was situated in the tribe of Zebulun, not far from Capernaum, on a hill (Luke iv. 29) some miles distance from Tabor. The derivation of the name from 1x3, bush, shrub (Hengstenberg Christol. vol. ii., 1, ff.) is incorrect, since (comp. Matth. 1, and Luke 3), the corresponds to T. Bengcl derives it from ITS, a crown. In this choice of the town of Nazareth as the residence for the mother and child, the Evan- gelist sees also the fulfilment of the Old Testament predictions ; he connects this with the name Na^wpaZof, Nazarene, which was given to the Saviour from his residence at Nazareth. But as there is no passage in the Old Testament where the Messiah is so called, the meaning of this reference is obscure. Some have supposed the Nazarite vow to be intended, and have imagined in this place a paronomasia between the name of the town and the word ITT; (Numb. vi. 1). But, in tla.Q first place, it does not agree with the Saviour's character to compare him with a Jewish Nazarite, because his life was not, like that of John the Baptist, marked by a rigid adherence to legal ceremonies ; and then the Nazarene is called in Greek No^patof, less frequently NaapaZof, or Nafypalog, while the inhabitant of Nazareth is called Na^op^vd^, or Na^wpaZof . (See Schleusner in his Lexicon to the LXX.) It is quite as unten- able to refer to the term ixs, shoot, branch, by which the Mes- siah, as a descendant of David, is frequently denominated* e. g., Isa. xi. 1. Had the Evangelist so intended it, he would have quoted a distinct passage from the prophets, where this term occurs, as he did in the former quotations from the Old Testament, But he could not, in that case, have employed the formula " that it might be fulfilled/' for there is no connexion between the name iss, shoot, and the dwelling in Nazareth. In our view of this passage we must, therefore, be guided by the expression prjOw did r&vnQofyr\r&v, * It was in this way that the learned Nazarene Jewish Christians explained the quo- tation to Jerome. See Hieronymi comm. ad loc. Jes. xL 1. 196 MATTHEW II. 23. spoken by the prophets. (The reading did rov irpoQiJTov is obviously a mere correction without critical authority.) The plural indicates that the Evangelist had not any single quotation in view, but meant only to adduce a collective citation ; and the article indicating a reference to all the prophets, or some in particular, whom Matthew supposed to be known. Accordingly, the view becomes most proba- ble, that the Evangelist had regard to the fact, that the Nazarenes were despised by the nation. In that case he would have those passages in view in which the Messiah is portrayed in his humilia- tion as, e. g., Ps. xxii. ; Isa. liii. [The general prediction that the Messiah should appear, not as a celebrated ruler, but as a despised, humble man, Matthew reproduces in this concrete form : " The prophets have predicted that he should be a genuine Nazarene (a despised one) ; that he should be what the Nazarenes in fact are, and what he, as Nazarene, has really been."] An etymological allu- sion to n:t3, the despised one (from -nt,) may be combined with this view, and is not improbable, particularly on the supposition of a Hebrew original of the Gospel. The endeavour of Matthew to re- present Jesus as the Messiah, according to the Old Testament pre- dictions, is most plainly evidenced even in these first chapters.'* As he wrote for Jews, it was his chief aim to prove the connexion of the various events at the birth of Jesus with the important testimonies of the Old Testament. (On naheiodai, see note on Luke i. 32.) If now, at the close of the first two chapters of Matthew, we glance at the objections which have been raised against their genu- ineness, we may take it for granted that, in our day, they may be regarded as set aside. No external reasons can be adduced for the opinion, that these chapters did not form part of the original Gospel, since it is proved that the " Gospel a#' 'EjSpawvf, according to the Hebrews" contained the history of the childhood of Jesus. (See the Author's History of the Gospels, p. 73, 76.) The Ebionites, indeed, had not the first chapters in their edition of that apo- cryphal Gospel ; but the fact of their having omitted them con- firms their genuineness. (See Epiph. haer. xxx. 13.) And with respect to the internal evidences, Gersdorf (Sprachcharacteristik, S. 38, ff.) has shewn convincingly the affinity of the style which prevails in the first chapters with that of the following parts ; al- though it must be admitted that Fritzsche (Excursus iii. in Matth.) has here and there refuted Gersdorf 's remarks. There is nothing left, then, to give any colour to these doubts, except the doctrinal objections taken against the contents ; but this reason will never be urged by judicious critics against the genuineness of the first * De Wette is wrong in assuming, contrary to his other declarations, a double sense ; the reference, according to him. is first to the town of Nazareth, and the residence there ; and then, further, to the word 153. LUKE I. 1. 197 two chapters, as, at most, it could only be brought against the credibility of the events narrated, not against the genuineness of this part of the work, since the Evangelist, in the subsequent parts, exhibits the same fundamental views which have given tone and character to the first chapters. Moreover, as reference is subsequently made (see iii. 1 ; iv. 23), to the preceding part, the first chapters are manifestly seen to be an integral part of the Gospel. Precisely the same observations apply to the arguments urged against the genuineness of the first chapters of Luke. (For the Literature on the subject, see Kuinoelii coinm. in Luc., vol. ii., p. 232.) Here, also, all external evidence is wanting ; since the character of the Mavcionite Gospel is a testimony, not against, but for their genuineness, because Marcion omitted the early chapters, which he found in the canonical Gospel of Luke. (Tertull. adv. Marc. iv. 7.) No internal reason can be adduced, except the mira- culous character of the events which they record a character which agrees perfectly with that of the whole. We shall presently treat particularly of the contradictions which appear to exist between the accounts of Matthew and Luke, in the history of the childhood of Jesus ; but on the ground occupied by our opponents, even in case they were irreconcileable, they would furnish ground of argument, not against the genuineness of the early chapters, but only against the credibility of the history. SECOND SECTION. LUKE'S ACCOUNT. CHAPTERS I. AND II. 1. PROEMIUM. (Luke i. 1-4.) x^, THE four verses with which Luke opens his work (consisting of two parts, see Acts i. 1), are worthy of notice in more than one respect. As regards the style, we perceive that the Evangelist's own style, which is pure Greek, as the first period shews, differs from the Hebraising style apparent in the subsequent part, where Luke communicates documents, whether unaltered or worked up, with which tradition had supplied him. His words next inform us, that, previous to his work, other records of the Gospel-his- tory were in existence, which, however, were of questionable ac- curacy (dotydkeia, i. 4) ; lastly, he indicates the sources from which V * Compare the Dissertation of J. G. Mulkr (Trier. 1830), which defends the genuine- ness of these chapters. 198 LUKE I. 1. lie drew, the principles which he had followed in the composition of his work, and the special ohject which he had in view. The con- struction of the Proemiuin exhibits a certain indefiniteness, which gives the more room for diverse explanations, as they are influenced by the various views entertained of the origin of the Gospels. The sense of the whole passage depends on where the apodosis is made to begin ; it may begin either with icadug Trapedooav, as they delivered them, or with 6o!-e nypoi, it seemed good also to me. According to the latter division, the words " as they delivered," etc., are connected with e-rre^Trep TroAAo/, forasmuch as many, etc., and contain an obser- vation on the quality of the earlier Gospel records ; for to refer them to the mere existence of those records, as if Luke had not personally known these older works, but had only heard of them by na^ddoai^, is evidently forbidden by the expression " eye-witnesses from the be- ginning," which necessarily implies a tradition respecting the history of Jesus.* Luke's opinion of the character of those older writings would, in that case, be a favourable one, since he claims the same sources of information for himself (/taflwf irapedooav i\\ilv) ; a supposi- tion which would very well agree with an hypothesis, according to which these many Gospels were shorter, and our Gospels more lengthened, editions of the same original Gospel. But as (ver. 4) blame is plainly imputed to the TroAAot, since Luke leads Theophilus to expect historical certainty nowhere but in his Gospel, which could not therefore be found in the accounts of the early narrators, f it might be thought necessary to prefer that division of the sentence which places the beginning of the apodosis at KaBug iraqcdooav r^ilv K. T. A. In that way, the tradition of the eye-witnesses would refer only to Luke's narrative ; and his narrative would stand distin- guished from the earlier ones. But here, again, we are met, ftrst, by the circumstance that, grammatically, the apodosis is more de- finitely pointed out in doe na^oi, than at icaOtig, since KO,\IOL appears evidently in contrast with the TroAAot ; besides, too, the change from T^jueZ? to dkeia) to The- ophilus, who, as being acqiiainted with classical literature, probably made stricter demands than the uncritical apocryphal writings could satisfy. In the first place, Luke wrote from the reports of eye- witnesses, and, next, with a discriminating use of those reports. Doubtless, he laid much stress on the character of the persons with whom these reports originated ; and the credibility of the whole Gospel-history rests, therefore, upon the Spirit, who animates a series of persons linked together by his living communicfUion.f * Comp., on the contrary, my Kritik dor Ev. Geschichte, 30. [E. f Justly does Osiander exclaim in his Apologie des Lsbens Jesu, Tubingen, ?37, S. 63 : " What shall bo said when Strauss, instead of refuting the strong anti-mythica 1 argu- ment afforded by Luke's preface, imagines it invalidated by the empty assertion. ' that Luke certainly might speak so, if he had no idea that he was narrating myths,' and de- grades a historian, who begins so discreetly, to a thoughtless collector of unconsciously framed myths ?" 202 LUKE I. 4. Facts such as the agency of the Holy Ghost in the birth of Je"sus, could be attested only by Mary herself ; but he who was moved by the same Spirit that enabled her to give such testimony, received her witness, and needed no other ; he who was a stranger to that Spirit, found no other testimonies, and accordingly left the matter uncredited. The acknowledgment of the certainty of the Gospel- history always presupposes, therefore, faith in the Spirit of truth ; and as in human life truth and falsehood appear side by side indeed, but yet are at the same time opposed, being distinguished as the kingdom of God and the World to him who is conversant with the world and its sprit, which every where suspects falsehood and de- ceit, because it carries them about in itself to him, as such, the Gospel-history can not and will not be accredited. But Luke's nar- rative afforded complete assurance to Theophilus, because he was not out of this sphere of the Spirit of truth, but lived within it. He was a member of the church (and the early church possessed the Spirit of truth fully), as indicated by the words 7repl J>v narrix'f}^ ko-yuv, the things wherein thou wast instructed, and the Spirit of the eye- witnesses was therefore in him also. (Kar^eZaflai is the usual term for attending on instruction in religion. See Acts xviii. 25 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 19 ; Gal, vi. 6.) Only we must not conceive of the nariixflaic; in the earliest times of the church to have consisted of a communica- tion of doctrines ; it was founded on history only (/toytu histories, narrations?) Reflection was not yet developed in the church, and doctrines had not yet been deduced from God's mighty acts by logical process. The apostles were content with bearing witness to the great facts of the life of Jesus ; on this foundation of fact the Church was reared. Mere opinions, doctrines, dogmas, could never have given rise to a phenomenon such as the Christian Church pre- sents. But after its formation, there could not fail to arise within it systematizing doctrinal activity, because the Spirit of Christ is destined to pervade all the powers of human nature. But though the instruction of the ancient church was historical, it was not confined merely to narration ; rather, the testimony of the first ministers of the word was accompanied by a power which attracted those hearts that received it into the new sphere of life opened by the Saviour ; and, by the agency of that Spirit, those who had re- ceived the testimony of the truth, became themselves, in turn, wit- nesses of those same great facts, which were not merely outwardly known to them as things past and over, but exerted a living power within, through the agency of the living Spirit. The church was thus built up purely from within itself ; nothing foreign could in- trude within its pale : first, the testimony to the truth had to be received and embraced with the accompanying power of the Spirit ; then followed incorporation into this new sphere of life, and faith in LUKE I. 4, 5. 203 its decisions. Even so the church is built up at this day, and will be till the end of time ; it needs, therefore, no further warrant for the truth of the Gospel-history than the reports of eye-witnesses, which are open to us, and which are still accompanied by the same power of the Spirit of truth, as their oral narrations formerly were, causing in those hearts which give it ad mission, the same assurance as was produced by the words of the witnesses of Jesus in the apos- tolic age. Who and what Theophilus was (compare Acts i. 1), cannot be determined further, than that the character of Luke's work leads us to conjecture it to have been addressed to one who was familiar with Kome and Italy, and, consequently, in all probability resident there.* The opinion that the Theophilus to whom Luke wrote, is the high-priest Theophilus spoken of by Josephus (Antiq. xviii. 6, 3 ; xix. 6, 4), is therefore to be rejected, since we cannot imagine him to have been so intimately acquainted with Italy. Besides, the title Kpartorog, most excellent, like the Latin splendidus, intimates considerable dignity, with which this Theophilus was invested. It was granted to proconsuls in the provinces (Acts xxiii. 26 ; xxiv. 3 ; xxvi. 25); at a later period, however, inferior officials also enjoyed it. (See Hug's Introd., p. 395, Fosdick's translation.) Although, therefore, the Gospel of Luke, as well as the Acts^of the Apostles, were, in the first instance, addressed to a distinguished private per- son, yet the church has justly received them into the canon, like the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon ; because the individuals for whom they were immediately intended, shared, as members of the church, its general wants ; and, therefore, what was adapted to them might be given to all. 2. ANNUNCIATION or THE BIRTH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST. (Luke i. 5-25.) Luke carries his " from the beginning" (awdev), in verse 3, so> far back, that he begins the history of Christ, and of the formation of the church, as early as the birth of John the Baptist. This view results from the nature of the phenomenon which he was his- torically to set forth. For after the spirit of prophecy became silent from the time of the building of the second temple, and seem- ed entirely to have vanished from among the people, there first re- appeared, in the person of John the Baptist, a prophet like those of the Old Testament. His history, therefore, must be embraced in the narrative, since it formed an integral part of the Gospel-history. * The opinion that Theophilus should be taken as an appellation Friend of God, and as including all believing readers, may be regarded as antiquated. 204 LUKE I. 5, 6. There is a striking change of style in passing from the preface to the narrative which follows ; while in the former, pure Greek pre- vails, in the latter, appear the strongest Hebraisms. This is most naturally accounted for on the supposition, that Luke drew his his- torical details from written sources, arid incorporated them into his work, often quite unchanged, or but slightly amended. The character of the narratives, moreover, particularly in the first two chapters, renders this conjecture extremely probable ; for they record events which took place in the bosom of two families, and which must have been preserved in them as a sacred treasure, till the hopes expressed of the two scions of the families had been made good by the result. But afterwards, when the Saviour's great work was accomplished, and Mary, the mother of our Lord, was numbered among the first disciples (Acts i. 14), nothing was more natural than that she should impart to the community the wonders that clustered round the birth of him whom she herself now adored as her Saviour. The holy family had, as it were, expanded ; and, in connexion with it, the sacred histories also, of which it had been the scene, could be more widely diffused. Ver. 5. Luke begins with a general designation of time (see note on Matth. ii. 1), by setting out from the reign of Herod the Great ; he then^ describes the family which is to be the immediate subject of his narrative. His object did not allow him, like Mat- thew, to assume much as already known. He describes with exact- ness all the characters ; Zacharias and Elizabeth were both of a priestly family (as Joseph and Mary were both of the lineage of David), which gave lustre to their offspring.* Of Zacharias we are further told, that, as priest he belonged to the course or the class of Abia. This was the eighth of the twenty-four classes of priests appointed by David. (See 1 Chron. xxiv. 10.) Each of these classes took the service in the temple for a week. (In Josephus [Antiq. vii. 15, 7], they are called narpiai, with reference to the relationship which existed among them. The name tyrjpepia, course, which does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, is chosen with reference to their duty in the temple.) The use which Scali- ger (opus de emendatione temporum) and Bengel (ordo temporum) have attempted to make of the definite succession of the twenty- four classes of priests in the temple service, as a chronological datum, cannot afford any results to be at all depended upon, because the terminus a quo of the rotation cannot be definitely fixed. Ver. 6. The account of their family relations is followed by that of their personal character. Both were 6iKatoi } just } righteous, and not merely outwardly before men, but before God. The idea of * Josephus (vit. c. 1) remarks, Hap' TI/J.IV rj 1% iepuavvw ps-ovcia rcKp'jpiov tan LUKE I. 6-10. 205 ), righteousness, used of persons under the law (as it is in Luke ii. 25, of Simeon, and 2 Peter ii. 7, of Lot), can of course be understood of legal righteousness only, as is shewn by the explana- tory clause, Tropev6fj,evot KV Trdaaig raig h>rohalg KOL ducai&naoi rov Kvpiov dfiefiirroi, walking in all the commands, etc. The Iv-oXai and the 6tK.ai6[j,ara, commands and ordinances, are the individual de- clarations and statutes of the law, which they had striven to follow with upright mind, and without pharisaical hypocrisy. But when, in this and other passages (Matth. x. 41 ; Luke xv. 7), righteous- ness (dinaioovvT)') is ascribed to certain persons, there is no contra- diction to Rom. iii. 20, according to which passage the law causes knowledge of sin. The diicaioavvr) rov vopov, righteousness of the laic, never is an absolute righteousness (Gal. iii. 20) ; but relatively, it always implies, in those who strive for its attainment, repentance and faith ; and hence a longing for the Finisher of that which is want- ing to them. Thus, on account of their righteousness, the desire for a Saviour was lively in Zacharias and Elizabeth. (On dutaioovvr], and all cognate words, see the complete exposition in the note on Rom. iii. 21.) Ver. 7. But the want of a blessing in respect of offspring formed a contrast with their righteousness, as in the case of Sarah. Elizabeth was barren (oreipa, see Luke xxiii. 29 ; Gal. iv. 27), and both were no longer young.* The age of Zacharias must be con- sidered relatively only viz., with respect to his office. According to Numb. viii. 25, no one was permitted to perform the functions of a priest beyond the fiftieth year of his age. If we take into account also the oriental custom of marrying early, Zacharias and Elizabeth might well have given up the hope of offspring on account of their long childless marriage, notwithstanding that the age of Zacharias, considered in itself, was not so great. (Kadori is found only in the writings of Luke, sometimes with the meaning siquidem, as in this passage and xix. 9 ; Acts ii. 24 ; sometimes meaning " according as," " as far as," Acts ii. 45 ; iv. 35. The phrase TrpofteprjKuc KV ralq rifiepaig = D-> 15 NB, Gen. xviii, 11, and frequently elsewhere.) Ver. 8, 9, 10. After these prefatory observations, which inform the reader of the circumstances of the family whose history is about to be told, there follows, introduced by an iyzvero d = rpj, and it came to pass, the special narration of the events connected with the birth of John. According to the arrangement of the Jew- ish service, incense was offered twice daily at the morning and * It was the same with the mothers of Isaac and Samuel. The Evangelium de nativ- ilate Marix (Thilo. vol. L, p. 322), remarks appropriately on this point : Deus cum alicu- jua uterum claudit, ad hoc facit, ut mirabilius denuo aperiat, et non libidinis esso quod nascitur, sed divini muneris cognoscatur. 206 LUKE I. 10-14. evening sacrifice. (Ex. xxx 7, 8.) The ministering priest carried the censer with incense (Ov/iia^a) into the holy place (vaof^r^rj-n, the temple properly speaking, while lepov includes the courts also ; see Matth. xii. 5 ; John ii. 14), in front of which the courts extended, where the multitude assembled for prayer stood, awaiting the re- turn of the priest. The twenty-four classes of the priests alternated according to a determinate cycle ; but the priest who was to minis- ter for the day was chosen by lot (Aa%e rov dvpidaai) from among the priests who constituted each class. This had become the estab- lished custom of the priest's office, ('lepdreia differs from lepdrevna, priesthood, 1 Peter ii. 5, and tepuovvr], priestly service, Heb. vii. 11, 12, 14.) Once upon a time, then, as the turn (rd&g) came to his class, it fell to Zacharias, by lot, to fill this office. (In verse 8 tvavn is preferable to the more common form Kvavriov. It is found in the New Testament only in this passage, and corresponds with Zvavra used by Homer. In the Old Testament the LXX. has tvavn in the passage Job xvi. 21.) Ver. 11. It is possible that the lot brought Zacharias into the temple for the first time, and the quiet sanctuary around powerfully affected him. These possibilities cannot make a sober expositor doubt that the narrator intends the appearance of the angel to be regarded as a fact ; nor can they lead a believing critic of this narrative to require the commonness of every-day life in the most eventful moments of the life of our race. At the time when the eternal Word descended to become flesh (John i. 1, 14), there ap- peared in the world of men phenomena from the world of spirit, such as were not needed in seasons of less powerful excitement. (See note on Matth. i. 18 ; ii. 8.) From a 'vivid conception, those minute features are given, which confirm the historical fact, and are unfavourable to the mythical view. The angel appeared by the altar, on the right side of it. (The 6vot,aarijpiov rov Ov^idparog, altar of incense, is described Ex. xxx. 1, ff. ; it stood in the holy place, and must be carefully distinguished from the great altar of burnt- offerings in the court, Heb. vii. 13.) Ver. 12-14. Although the vision was to be a blessing to Zacha- rias, yet fear seized him when he saw it, as frequently in similar circumstances. (Compare Luke i. 29 ; Rev. i. 17 ; Dan. x. 7, 12.) In one aspect, this fear, at the immediate view of phenomena from the unseen world, is an expression of the feeling of sinfulness. But for sin, man would see in what is divine something akin to himself; and instead of fear, he would experience ravishing delight. In an- other aspect, however, this fear is expressive of a sensibility to this contrast between what is pure and what is unholy; and in this consists its nobler character. Hence, such fear of God is never considered as blameworthy, but as the beginning (Psalm cxL LUKE I. 14, 15. 207 10) and the end (Isaiah xi. 2) of all wisdom. This fear of God, which is consistent with love (see Rev. i. 17, where the disciple of love falls to the earth with fear at the sight of him whom he loves), must not, therefore, be confounded with the fear engendered by the spirit of bondage (rrvevfia dovXda^), The latter implies being afraid of God (vor Gott), which is absolutely culpable ; the former might be called fear of ourselves, or fear for God (fur Gott). (See note on Rom. viii. 15.) The heavenly messenger quiets this holy fear, and then communicates his message of joy. (The d^rjaig, prayer, indicates that Zacharias had not altogether given up the hope of offspring. Tevvav is here equivalent to riKreiv, bear, as Gal. iv. 24.) At the same time a name is given, as Matth. i. 21, to the promised son, and a name expressive of his spiritual importance. (ludwrjg = -\ ihrn, bestoived of Jehovah.) Thereby he will bring joy not only to the parents by his natural birth, but also to all the pious by his spiritual character and office, which are here, by anticipation, con- nected with his birth. ('Ayakkiaaig, exultation, is a stronger term than %apd, joy. In this passage, as in Matth. i. 18, the reading yeveaei is preferable to the common one yevvijoei.) Ver. 15. In the following verses the words of the angel describe, first, the character of this promised one ; next, his labours; and lastly, his relation to the Messiah, in whom all the hopes and ex- pectations of believing Israelites centred. In reference to his cha- racter, it is first observed in general, that a spiritual significancy would attach to him. (Meyag = Vita, great, in respect of influence, as Hosea i. 11. The additional clause " before the Lord" sets aside the idea of worldly importance ; he bears a purely spiritual charac- ter.) Then the type of his piety is more precisely described by the circumstance, that he will live the life of a Nazarite. (See more particularly the note on Matth. ix. 14. Siicepa = ns is used of all intoxicating drinks ; the passage has reference to Numb. vi. 3, ff.) In the life of a Nazarite there appears concentrated the strict legal character which John, the close and crowning-stone, as it were, of the old dispensation, was called to exhibit. This form of piety is not, therefore, to be regarded as the highest, because a heavenly messenger ascribes it to John as an excellence ; it is rather assigned to him as a duty, as being specially suited to > his whole calling and destination. The wisdom of God embraces every variety of indivi- dual character and of circumstances, and neither requires every thing from, nor gives every thing to, each. The negative characteristic "not drinking" (ov melv) is followed by the positive one, "filled with the holy Spirit" (TrfajoOfytu -rrvevfiaro^ dyiov). That this does not im- ply furnishing with natural capacities, is sufficiently plain from Ttvevfia dyiov, Holy Spirit, which always denotes a superior, heavenly life-power, that does not belong to fallen man as such. To suppose 208 LUKE I. 15, 16. this power at work in John (as in all Old Testament prophets), would be attended with no further difficulty ; but the phrase KTI IK Koihiag prjTpog, even from his mother's tvomb, is obscure. ('E KOLX'KH; jUT/rpof ^N 'swa, Psalm Ixxi. 6. "En, still, is not pre- cisely equivalent to r/d??, already, immediately; it is rather to be taken in its proper sense, as the writer conceives the agency of the Holy Spirit continuing from the mother's womb down to a later period.) Considered in itself, the expression in KoiXia^ \n\-rpoc; might indeed mean merely " from early youth onward ;" but, in connexion with ver. 44, we must allow, that, without doiibt, the writer intends us to conceive of an active influence in the Baptist before his birth. But this thought becomes perfectly intelligible if we consider, first, that the TTvevfj.a aytov in this passage, is not to be taken as identical with the Holy Spirit, whose outpouring is connected with the com- pletion of the work of Jesus. (See note on John vii. 39.) The ex- pression denotes here the divine power, in so far as it is a holy power, as Psalm li. 13 ; Isaiah Ixiii. 10. And further, as the Divine Spirit influences even the /mcrtf, creation (Rom. viii. 19), we can have no hesitation in admitting his influence in the elect before birth. In like manner we must conceive of the influence of bap- tism on unconscious children ; but not that it should be thought identical with regeneration. Ver. 16. The immediate agency of this prophet promised anew, after so long a silence of the prophetic spirit, is now described as limited to the people of Israel, warning of destruction, and awakening to repentance. ('Emorpfyeiv = a->ten refers to nerdvoia, which forms the central point of John's labours, Matth. iii. 2.) A new and higher principle of life John could not impart, nor was that his destination ; but the " Spirit" in him was intended to awaken the sense of the higher end of life to point men back to God. His ministry was confined to Israel, like that of the Saviour (Matth. xv. 24), not that the other nations were to be excluded from the favours of God, but because what was wrought among the central people of mankind was for the benefit of all. There a hearth had first to be prepared for the holy fire, and for that reason the influence of God's messengers was concentrated on that spot. That it was not, however, the -whole nation, but only certain members of it, that would be gained, is expressed plainly in the words : TroAAoDf r&v vl&v TOV 'lopaf/A tmorptyei, many of the children of Israel shall he turn, etc. Just so when God is called " their God," as in the Old Testa- ment, " The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" this does not imply at all the exclusion of other nations (Luke ii. 31) from the blessing of the true God, nor a limitation of it to Israel, but the fact that God no more sustains a uniform relation to different nations than to different individuals. The Biblo knows of no LUKE I. 16, 17. 209 national God of the Hebrews ; it teaches only, that it hath pleased the one true God, the maker of heaven and earth, to bring Israel into special relation with himself (Lev. xx. 26 ; Sirach xxiv. 13), and in Israel again, certain individuals. The angel speaks here, cer- tainly, in a human and Jewish manner i. e., so as men and Jews could understand ; but, at the same time, in a divine manner, since it is purely divine determinations to which his words refer, and with which are connected new divine ordinances. Ver. 17. Lastly, The appearance of the new prophet is shewn to be connected with the Messiah, as prophesied by Malachi (iv. 5, 6); according to which passage, Elijah was to precede the Messiah, ex- ercising a preparatory influence (Matth. iii. 3, ff. Uposp^eoOat, go before, involves preparation.) But the expression : KV Trvevpari nal dwdpei 'HAiov, in the spirit and power of Elijah, gives this passage an explanatory character. John was not to be Elijah raised from the dead, but his antitype ; being of a like spiritual nature, he was to exercise a kindred influence. While "spirit" (nvevfia) has a more general application, indicating his general characteristics, as controlled by the quickening principle from on high "power" (dvvafug) denotes rather what is special and extraordinary. In Elijah, the idea of divine power , and that in its sterner features, is, as it were, personified ; the same is the spiritual character of John. (Comp. more particularly in note on Matth. xi. 14.) The angel's re- ferring to the language of Scripture, is parallel with the quotation from Scripture in Christ's temptation, on the part of the devil. (Matth. iv. 6.) Passages like these are erroneously employed for the purpose of assailing the historical reality of angelic appearances. The true conception is not that the angels formally quote the Scrip- tures ; but that the language of the Scriptures themselves origin- ates in the counsels of that heavenly world to which these spir- itual personages belong. The attaching of the thought to the words of Scripture, is to be viewed as merely clothing them in the form familiar and intelligible among men. Angels do not, therefore, quote the words of Scripture, because they wish to derive from the Bible a proof or an illustration of what they say ; but the thoughts expressed by them are in the Bible, because they contain a truth, which stands good, as well in heaven as in earth.* This verse is, further, of the highest importance on account of the expression, tvumov avrov, before him, which refers grammatically to Kvptov rbv Qebv avr&v, the Lord their God, ver. 16, so that God him- * It is difficult to see why an angel, in holding communication with men, should not quote Scripture in the same direct and formal way, and for the same purposes of " proof or illustration" as did the Saviour, or the Holy Spirit speaking through those whom he in- spired. That angels do not avail themselves of the Scriptures as one means of" looking into" the gracious dispensations of God (see 1 Peter L 12), can be neither proved nor ren- dered probable. K. VOL. I. 14 210 LUKE I. 17, 18. self is conceived as appearing in the Messiah. Were this thought foreign or contradictory to the doctrine of Scripture, a less natural explanation might be attempted (as, e. g., that avro^ tnn denoted the Messiah, that well-known, that desired one) ; but as even the Old Testament (Isa. xl. 3, 5 ; Jer. xxiii. 6 ; Joel iii. 21 ; Mai. iii. 1) intimates the same truth, and the New Testament (John i. 14) expresses it clearly in doctrinal form, the interpreter must abide by the simple construction of the words. It was the exalted destina- tion of the Baptist to lead the hearts of men, alienated by sin from what is divine, to the Lord of all lords, who revealed himself in Christ visibly and near. The concluding words of ver. 17 are a free quotation from Mai. iv. 5, 6. The LXX., which substantially follows the Hebrew text, translates o$ d^oaaraorriaeL Kapdiav -rrar-pbg rcpbg vlbv, not napdiav dvdpdmov npbg rbv K\,T\GIQV avrov, who shall restore the heart of the father to the son, and the heart of a man to his neighbour. In this way the words affirm only that he will remove the alienation of men's spirit, and restore love and peace. But, according to the words in Luke, the second half of the sentence, emarptyai d-rreideig iv (fipovrjaei diKaiuv, to turn the disobedient into the wisdom of the just, acquires, apparently, a different meaning. But if we look on dnetdel^, disobedient, as corresponding to " the children," and the 6iicaioi,just, as corresponding to the " fathers," the thought remains essentially the same ; he will produce a great moral eifect on the people, re- straining the fierce outbreakings of sin ; he will awaken a salutary endeavour after righteousness, and thus call forth a Aadf KareoKevaa- juevof, prepared people, whose character consists in the sense of a need of salvation. ($p6v7)m$ is here nearly related to ao^ia, [rossr], although not identical with it ; it is n s^a in the noblest sense ; so that ungodliness appears as the true folly, godliness as the true wis- dom. [Matth. x. 16.] 'Ev faovrjaei in construction with Imorptyai must be viewed as another case, where a verb of motion is joined immediately with a preposition of rest.) Ver. 18. The angel's promise of a son was not to exclude na- tural generation ; Christ's birth happened differently from John's. Parallel with this is Isaac's birth in the Old Testament ; but the unbelief of Zacharias forms a striking contrast to Abraham's faith. Of Abraham it is said, " he considered not his own body already dead" (ov Karsvorjoe rb iavrov G&IIO, i]dr) veveKpvuevov^ , Rom. iv. 19. Zacharias looked at his age and his long unfruitful marriage in a doubting spirit. It is not, therefore, the forethought exercised by the father that is blamed, but his unbelief ;* he was certainly con- * Such an expression of unbelief at such an instant, is not. so much to bo conceived as proceeding from reflection and intention, but should be viewed rather as an involun- tary utterance of the soul. In such moments, the inmost being of the soul becomes manifest; it is seen whether faith or unbelief occupies the heart's core. The event had, therefore, for Zacharias himself, a perfecting effect on his spiritual life. LUKE I. 18-20. 211 vinced that the vision in the temple beside the altar, which filled his heart with holy fear, was a heavenly one, but, nevertheless, he allowed unbelief a place in his heart. The wrong lay not in the words of the question, but in the disposition from which it pro- ceeded. (Mary's question [Luke i. 34] sounds like one that pro- ceeded from doubt, and yet she exercised a childlike trust.) The asking for a sign (nto, dT/pZov) in confirmation of the promise, is never disapproved (see Gen. xv. 8, where Abraham asks y?x n^s = Kara ri yvuxjo^ai rovro) ; on the contrary, under certain circum- stances, not to ask for one is rebuked. (Isa. vii. 13.) Zacharias' re- quest for a sign is therefore granted ; but, for his unbelief, he re- ceives a sign that is a punishment. Ver. 19. To accredit himself, as it were (and to correct the un- believing Zacharias), the heavenly messenger makes himself known in his high dignity ; he calls himself Gabriel (Vioias, Dan. viii. 16 ; ix. 21 i. e., man of God), representing the creative power of God. That the angel applies a Hebrew name to himself, ceases to surprise us, if we view rightly the meaning of names. A name is nothing else than the term which corresponds to the inmost essence of the object named. In so far, therefore, as the beings of the spiritual world possess definite characters, they have their names ; whether those names assume a Hebrew form or any other form of human speech, depends on circumstances. Here we have, at the same time, an explanation of the fact, that the names of the angels are not met with till the later periods of the Jewish state ; for it would be much easier to form a general idea of a world of spiritual beings, than to individualize sharply their separate characters, and not till then could names be framed to denote such individualities. By the adjunct : 7rape(7T7?/ca>f wumov rov 6eot>, standing in the presence of God, the in- dividual that appeared is further associated with a certain class of angels. (See more fully in note on Matth. xviii. 10.) The grada- tion of existences everywhere prevailing throughout creation, men with perfect consistency conceive as existing also in the world of spirits. Hence in the doctrines of Zenda vesta, there appear, in like manner, degrees among the angels ; the seven Amshaspands are imagined to be nearest the throne of God.* That there is truth in this mode of conceiving the matter is proved by the Scriptures, which, long before the Jews had any connexion with the Persians, represent angels in the more immediate presence of God. (Isa. vi. * Agreeably with this, we find in the Persian constitution, which was intended as a copy of the heavenly order, seven princes of the kingdom (or chamberlains), who stood first round the king's throne. (Esther i. 10, 14.) The supposition that the Jews derived their doctrines about angels from the Parsees, is discountenanced by the fact, that the Hebrews had only four throne-angels, as well as by general reasons. (See note on Matth- viii. 28. Compare also Buxl. lex talm., p. 46.) It must be confessed, however, that they had the number seven as well as four. (See more fully in note on Rev. iv 5, 6.) 212 LUKE I. 20-25. I, ff.) The descriptions in Dan. vii. 9, ff. and Kev. iv. 1, fT., also evidently convey the idea of the existences of the spiritual world standing at various degrees of distance from God, and of corre- sponding grades of dignity. Ver. 20. Zacharias, for his unbelieving language, has inflicted upon him the punishment of dumbness ; but, at the same time, the period of healing is foretold as an alleviation, and for a sign of the promise given. (M?/ dvvdpevog ^a^rjaai is merely an explanatory clause of muirtiv for w^)6f, which term is used, ver. 22. 'Av0' wv [Luke xii. 3 ; xix. 44] answers both to I_N nwn, Deut. xxviii. 47, and to ij*-V, Jer. xxii. 9. E/f rbv natpbv avr&v is to be taken " according to the suc- cession of the several incidents ;" first the birth of the child must take place, and then he would show himself to be the promised one.) Ver. 21, 22. According -to the later tradition, the priests would seem not to have remained long at prayer in the temple, in order not to excite the fear of some misfortune having happened to them in the temple, which, as the officiating priest was regarded as the representative of the nation, would have been viewed as a national calamity. Hence the continued stay of Zacharias in the temple, though not in itself long, was already beginning to ex- cite surprise. The observation that they perceived he had seen a vision (d-rrraoia = nxn,) does not refer to his silence, but probably to his whole appearance, in which violent excitement may have been expressed, which, from his coming out of the temple, was immedi- ately referred to a spiritual cause. Zacharias confirmed the opinion thus expressed, by signs (avrof rjv diavevuv avrolg). Ver. 23, 24. After the completion of the week, during which the class of the priests to which Zacharias belonged had fulfilled their service, he returned to his house, and his wife became with child. During the first period of her pregnancy, however, she kept herself retired, that all uncertainty might be removed. (In the New Testament Aeirovpyta, from AeTrof = drj^ooio^, public, never means political service ; yet it is used of external service, as Phil. ii. 30 ; 2 Cor. ix. 12. The term commonly denotes holy serv- ice, as Heb. ix. 21, and is applied also to purely spiritual relations, as Phil. ii. 17, teiTovpyla rijg niareug.') Ver. 25. The happy mother acknowledges, with gratitude, the divine blessing in her pregnancy. According to the Old Testament notion, to be without children was a reproach, (Isa. iv. 1 ; Hos. ix. II, 12) ; and in this the prevailing tendency to what is external is plainly expressed. The more spiritual character of the New Tes- tament, renders temporal blessings entirely subordinate. ("Or*, introducing the direct sentence, often appears in the New Testament according to the analogy of the Hebrew >;?. [See Exod. iv. LUKE I. 28, 29. 213 25 ; xviii. 15.] MN? and Tfca are often used, like lirddu, in the sense of " to direct the countenance to any thing as a token of favour." In the opposite signification which ~>p,s also often has inddu occurs in Acts iv. 29.) 3. ANNUNCIATION OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS MARY'S VISIT TO ELIZABETH. Luke i. 26-56. Luke's record is here more specific as to time and place than Matthew's. We can, therefore, by his help, render Matthew's account more full and circumstantial. The words " in the sixth month/' which refer to verse 24, furnish a datum of some import- ance for the age of Jesus in relation to John ; and the observation, that the annunciation took place at Nazareth, explains to us Matth. ii. 23. Doubtless Mary (or Joseph) had property in Naza- reth as well as in Bethlehem ; on which account Nazareth is called, in Luke ii. 39, TTO/U^ avr&v, their city. (On Nazareth and Galilee, see note on Matth. ii. 22, 23. Mv^areveadai = to-, see Deut. xxii. 23.) Ver. 28, 29. The description which follows, of a secret transac- tion of the most delicate character, is conceived with a simplicity and tenderness, and, at the same time, with a freedom from any un- called for intermixture of reflection, which confirm the fact to every mind open to truth ; and it is only by force that it can be perverted to any impure associations. With a heavenly salutation the mes- senger of the higher world introduces himself to the humble, child-like Mary Xalpe KexapirufiKvrj, hail, thou highly favoured. (Xapirofo, to MAKE pleasant, agreeable, is found in Ephes. i. 6, besides in this place. It is in use also among the later authors e. g., Libanius.) The expression does not imply any self-produced holiness and excellence in Mary, but only her election by grace. The Lord had. chosen her, even in the line of her ancestors, to be the mother of the Saviour. With child-like innocence she dreamed not of her high destination, and thought herself not worthy of this happiness the highest that a daughter of Abraham could imagine. While, therefore, Ke^aptTwjitev?/, highly favoured, applies to her whole spiritual state, the subsequent expression, ev^oyrjuKvri iv yvvat&v, blessed among women, refers to her special destination ; so that tyevijeris, thou art become, may be supplied.* Mary fell into medi- tation on the meaning of this salutation (rroraTrof denotes as much the quantity as the quality, Matth. viii. 27 ; 1 John iii. 1); and on * EiiAoyeiv, like "rp.s, has a double sense, according as it is used of the relation of superior to inferior, or of inferior to superior. In the former relation it means "to bless;" in the latter, "to praise," "to thank," which presupposes our having beea blessed. 214 LUKE I. 30-33. the appearance of the heavenly messenger (on dierapdxftrj, was dis- turbed, see note on i. 12), she did not know how to apply it to her- self. (On 6iako<)'io/3ov, fear not (see i. 13), and an assurance of the favour of God. The idea of " favour" (xdpig = Vn, evpioKetv %dpiv = ih N*) involves here the free exercise of divine love, which does not appear determined hy any thing existing out of or in her. It is consequently an expression of the pure choice of grace, which leaves the creature no possibility of personal merit. The an- nouncement, that Mary was to become a mother, is accompanied, as in Matth. i. 21, with the mention of the name which the child was to receive. Ver. 32, 33. The character of this expected child of God is now described by infinitely more exalted traits than was that of John above, ch. i. 16, 17.* He comes as vlbg tyiarov, son of the highest (John as dovhog, servant), and as ruler over the house of Jacob, to which John himself belonged. (On jtteyo?, great, see note on verse 15 ; and on vlb$ v^iarov, fur- ther remarks in note on i. 35. The term vtptorog, highest, corre- sponds to the Hebrew TI^?, Gen. xiv. 18. Kakelodai, to be called, is sometimes used of false, empty speaking ; and then the essence, as -being something superior, is opposed to it ; but, sometimes, of being named, in as far as it is a correct denomination of the essence ; and in this latter meaning it is (like N^) synonymous with elvai, to be, but with the accessory idea of being recognized to be such. This meaning, which is connected with the use of dvopa, name, (t) is often found ; e. g., immediately after in verse 35, 76 ; Matth. v. 9, 19 ; and frequently. The former meaning appears verse 36, and frequently.) With respect to the dominion assured to the promised offspring, it is, in the first place, connected with the person of David. The principal passage which establishes this connexion is 2 Sam. vii. 13, ff. In its immediate literal sense, it applies to Solomon, who, how- ever, is, at the same time, viewed as a type of the true Prince of Peace. The passage is so treated even by the prophets (Psalm Ixxxix. 4 ; Isaiah ix. 7 ; Jer. xxxiii. 15, ff.) Next, the dominion of the expected King is described as an everlasting one. The indefinite phrase e/? rovg alG>vaq,for ever (LXX. have d? rbv al&va in 2 Sam. vii. 13, 16) is defined more accurately by OVK la-rai TE/,O$, there shall be no end; so that the dominion of Jesus is here described as an everlasting, endless one, in its proper sense. This thought leads to * See Theremin's incomparable Sermon on the words, "He shall be great," in hia Kreuz Christi, Tb, i., Sermon 2. LUKE I. 33-35. 215 the right view of the limitation here made of the Messiah's king- dom to the house of Jacob. A dominion that extends beyond all time, cannot, at the same time, be conceived as limited by political boundaries. The special reference to the house of Jacob is to be viewed here in the same manner as in Luke i. 16 ; and, at the same time, the people of Israel is regarded (as in Matth. ii. 6) as a type of the sanctified portion of mankind brought together in the king- dom of the Messiah. (John xi. 52.) Ver. 34. With child-like innocence Mary expresses her doubts at this wonderful language ; she does not live in marriage connexion with any one (yivuoKu = y?i } } and cannot, therefore, be a mother. According to the entire form of the answer, it might have proceeded from unbelief ; at least the words are not expressive of faith. The connexion, however, implies that Mary believed, but wished to know how this promise could be accomplished. Believing inquiry, directed in a child-like spirit, is therefore not blamed. Ver. 35. In answer to this question, the angel discloses to her, that the Son of God, whom she was to bear, would be conceived in a pure and chaste manner in her virgin womb. In words of deep import the heavenly messenger declares to her this sublime mystery. In the first thought, TTvevpa dyiov ETrekevoerai KTTL oe, the Holy /Spirit shall come upon thee, the rrvsv^a dyiov, Holy Spirit, is, as in i. 15, the divine essence in general, which, in its nature, is holy. As the physical generation of Jesus, is here spoken of, we cannot refer the creative agency to the Holy Spirit in the narrow sense, who, according to the fundamental view of the Trinity, makes the world of conscious moral agents the sphere of his agency.'* The absence of the article favours this view ; irvev^a dyiov, Holy Spirit, has indeed acquired the nature of a proper name, but dvvapig tyiorov, power of the highest, could not have been without the article, if 'the third person of the Godhead had been intended. In KTrekevoeraL ETTI ae, shall come upon thee, there is also, most pro- bably, an allusion to the description of the creation of the world (Gen. i. 2, where the LXX. translate ft?>pto, t-7rcepeTo mdva) TOV vda-og), of which the creation of that miniature world, the first man was a copy, which has its antitype in regeneration. (John iii. 5, 8.) The latter half of the verse explains the former more par- ticularly. "Power of the highest" here corresponds to "Holy Spirit," and indicates the correct notion of it as the creative power of God. (B^N STII, Gen. i. 2.) 'Emoiudaei ooi, shall overshadow thee, * If we were to hold this to refer literally to the third person of the Godhead, it would, moreover, follow that the Holy Ghost was the Father of Jesus Christ ; a mode of speaking very rightly never sanctioned by the Church, since the Holy Ghost does in- deed proceed from the Son, but the Son has not. his origin from the Spirit. God the Father is the Father of Jesus in his divine and human nature. 216 LUKE I. 35. stands as explanatory of Kiretevaerat km ae, shall come upon thee. 'Emanidfrtv, overshadow, does not at all involve the idea of " pro- tecting, screening" (according to the analogy of the Hebrew ^); the connexion leads evidently to the idea of generation. It is best, therefore, to compare it with the Hebrew QIBSS sns (Ruth iii. 9 ; Ezek. xvi. 8) in the signification of spreading out the wings ( skirts of a garment), consequently " to surround," "to overshadow/'* which is an euphemistic expression for connubial intercourse. Per- haps the term contains also a remote allusion to n?rn in Gen. i. 2. The word tjrn is well known to have the meaning " to hover over ;" and in Deut. xxxii. 11, it. is placed in parallelism with c^ljs an?. The whole thought of the remarkable verse is, therefore, no other than this, that Mary, without the intervention of a man, would be- come a mother the pure and chaste power of the creative Divine Spirit would be the generator.f Consequently, the appearance of the Saviour among mankind is represented as a new, immediate, and divine act of creation, and thus the transmission of sinfulness from the sinful race to him is excluded. But inasmuch as this act of creation did not altogether exclude the substance of human nature, in consequence of Mary's relation to Jesus, the Saviour, though free from sinfulness in the principle of life, yet partook in common with men of the doOeveta rrjg aapKog, weakness of the flesh (2 Cor. xiii. 4.) On this depended his capacity of suffering, which again was a necessary condition of his whole work as the Saviour4 In his human nature he glorified human nature in gen- eral. The fact of the promised offspring being referred for his origin to the " Holy Spirit," necessarily shews him to be holy himself, and as such he is called Son of God. (The words in aov were pro- * The cherubim also spreading their wings over the ark of the covenant, denote the active presence of God. Exod. xL 34; Numb. ix. 18, 22. See also Suiceri Thcs., vol. L, p. 1175. f The tTTiaicid&iv, overshadow, hardly implies creation. Of Christ's being generated Scripture nowhere speaks, and how could the Son, who existed before the world (John xvii. 5), be generated? Evidently he could only enter a new form of existence, pass- ing, viz., from an eternal, absolute, omniscient existence, to the limitations that belong to the soul of a child. Having become a human soul, he entered the bosom of a virgin (was conceived), and here formed to himself a body. For this the existing material was to be prepared and sanctified by that overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, precisely as, Gen. i. 2, the elements of chaos were prepared, by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, to receive the influences of the "Word of God. (E.) \ If Jesus had come into the world by ordinary generation, he would have shared in the necessitas moriendi, together with general depravity; if he had not been born of a human mother, the impossibilitas moriendi would have belonged to him ; accordingly, only the narrative presented in the Gospels fulfils all that is required in the idea of a Saviour. Being born as a man, the Saviour passed a really human life ; but, like that of Adam before the fall, with a possibilitas tentationis et mortis, which then, by his victory became an impossibilitas. (See further note on Matth. iv. 1, ff.) Son of God, vidf Qsov, is hereto designation of the eternal, pre-existent Son of God, as pre-existent ; it designates primarily the assuming of humanity, the man Jesus, as LUKE I. 35. 217 bably subjoined to jevv^evov by the transcribers, to whom the thought appeared imperfect ; no tangible reason can be given for their having been intentionally omitted.) The name Son of God, like Son of the Highest in ver. 32, has here undeniably a reference to the human nature of Christ. He is called Son of God, because he was born, corporeally, of Mary, from the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. That the same physical meaning of the word vloq, son, is to be assumed in ver. 32, is shewn partly by the connexion with ver. 31, and partly by David's being denominated 7rar?/p, father. Passages like Mark xiii. 32 ; Heb. v. 8, (in which, however, vlog, stands alone), appear likewise to come under this head. Jesus is therefore here called Son of God in the same sense as Adam in Luke iii. 38, inasmuch as he received his being immediately from God's hand ; the first and second Adam are parallel in this respect also. Both form a contrast to the sons of men, who, as descendants of fallen Adam, bear in themselves the image of the fallen one (Gen. v. 3.) When, on the contrary, Jesus is called 6 vlbg rov dvOpunov, the son of man (with the article, which is very rarely omitted, as it is in John v. 27), this name is very nearly allied to the physical meaning of the name Son of God, men- tioned above. It refers also to the human nature of our Lord, but to this nature as conceived in its ideal character. The term has its origin in the Old Testament, which, in several re- markable passages (forming the basis of the rabbinical dogma of Adam Kadmori), transports the human nature in its ideal into the divine essence itself. (Compare 2 Sam. vii. 19 ; 1 Chron. xviii. 17 ; . Ezek. i. 26 ; Dan. vii. 13, 10, 16, with 1 Cor. xv. 45, ff.) Hence an intimate oneness with the Father and the heavenly world is ascribed to the son of man (John iii. 13), and all power and glory, without reference to the humiliation, is ascribed to him (John v. 27 ; Matth. xxvi. 64 ; Acts vii. 55.) Yet, as the apostles never use this name of him (out of the Gospels it occurs only in Acts vii. 55, and that with a special reference to the bodily appearance of our Lord), and Jesus, on the contrary, chiefly uses it when speaking of himself ; it is probable that he desired in that way to bring himself near to man, and intended, at the same time, to set before their eyes the ideal of human perfection. In recent times, some would allow the name " the son of man" to be nothing more than a customary name of the Messiah ; but this view is very improbable for the reason, that then the people would sometimes have given Jesus that name,* or the boon of heaven to the human race. But although Christ is not in form designated as the Son of God from his eternal, but from his earthly and phenomenal existence, still, as matter of fact (in opposition to Hofmann, Scripture-proof, I. p. 114), the church doc- trine is by no means thus done away that Christ was not a Son of God by Mary, but the Son of God from eternity, and became the son of Mary by conception and birth. (E.) * In the Apocryphal book of Enoch, the name does indeed occur ; but undoubtedly 218 LTJKE I. 35. a false Messiah, would have assumed it. It is probable, that only a very few of the enlightened among the people understood the name sj3N 15, SOT?- of man, in the true sense of those prophetic passages, in which it embodies the idea of an original man an ideal of humanity. The name for the Messiah most usual among the people at the time of Jesus, was 6 vlbg Aaflid, the son of David. By this name our Lord was commonly addressed by those who im- plored his help, and who thus acknowledged his power to help ; and the Saviour himself presupposes this name, as so well known and familiar, that he argues upon it, and proves thence the superior dig- nity of the Messiah. (See Matth. ix. 27 ; xii. 23 ; xv. 22 ; xx. 30, 31 ; xxi. 9, 15 ; xxii. 42, 45.) That this name became so familiar as a designation of the Messiah, is partly because the prophecies of the Old Testament declared very fully and distinctly, that the Mes- siah was to come of David's descendants ; on which account the prophets often use the name of David for that of the Messiah (Isa. xi. 1, 10 ; Jer. xxiii. 5 ; xxxiii. 15, 21 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24 ; xxxvii. 24, 25 ; Psalm Ixxxix. 4, 21) ; and partly, because David was to the Jews the splendid ideal of a ruler over his people, under whom their dominion was most widely extended. The use of this name, there- fore, was connected with that range of secular conceptions of the Messiah, which was prevalent among the Jews. In order, therefore, not to countenance these, our Lord in speaking of himself, avoided the use of that name altogether, and endeavoured rather, by the use of the more obscure expression, " son of man," to give to the inquiry in relation to the character of the Messiah another direction ; for although the name was nqt a familiar one, he might yet assume it as understood among the better portion, from those prophetic pas- sages in which it occurs. But the phrase vibg Qeov, Son of God, is commonly used in the New Testament in a sense very different from the physical one, in which it occurs in Luke i. 32, 35 ; and then the article is wanting. The phrase usually denotes, in a metaphysical sense, the eternal existence of Christ, which he has with the father his relation as God to God, as the manifestation of the unseen God. In the Old Testament, the name 6 vlbg rov QEOV, the Son of God, does not occur to express this idea ; for in passages like Psalm ii. 7 ;* 2 Sam. vii. 14, the prevailing reference is to earthly forms of manifestation. But although the name is wanting (as is the case with the idea of the ftaaiXeia rov Qeov, kingdom of God), yet the idea itself is widely diffused in the Old Testament. It appears as early as Genesis (see Steinwender diss. Christus Deus, in V. T. Regiom. it is only through Christian influence that the name has been put there. John xii. 34, ehews that the name was quite strange to the Jews. * The words nnN ''SSi (Psalm ii. 7) do not, as ver. 6 shews, refers to the eternal gen- eration of the Son by the Father, but to the appointment of the Son to universal dominion in the world. LUKE I. 35. 1829, where the passages from the historical books are collected), and often subsequently in the prophetic writings, Isa. ix. 6, 7 ; xi. 1, 2 ; Mica*h v. 1 ; Jer. xxiii. 6 ; xxxiii. 16, and often. In the Apo- crypha, see Wisdom vii. 25, if. ; viii. 3 ; Sirach xxiv. 4, ff. In the formation of the name " Son of God," passages like Psalm ii. 7, probably exercised important influence at a later period, since the different relations in which the phrase might be employed, were not sufficiently discriminated. Moreover, we find it in many passages in the New Testament ; and, indeed, while Jesus himself prefers to call himself " son of man," the apostles, for the most part, use the name " Son of God." The Saviour, as son of man, brings himself near to men. Men elevate him, as Son of God, above themselves. Yet our Lord (in John's Gospel) often calls himself Son of God, or Son, with a pregnant meaning. But that the name Son of God, was merely a name for the Messiah com- mon among the Jews, and without a deeper meaning they will hardly be convinced, who consider, first, that the ordinary popu- lar opinion among the Jews regarded the Messiah as merely a dis- tinguished man, who, on account of his excellencies, was chosen by God tear' KKkoyijv, for the office. (Justin Martyr dial. c. Tryph., p. 266, sq.) According to this view, names, such as Xpiorog, ftam^evg T&V 'lovdaiuv, vlbg rov Aa/3?, Christ, King of the Jews, son of David, and others would be more readily suggested. Again, if the name had been so familiar, there would not have been such astonishment at Jesus so calling himself. (John v. 18, ff. ; x. 33, ff.) Lastly, too, we never find any false Messiah calling himself " Son of God." The passages John x. 33, ff. ; xix. 7, ff., rather shew that the people re- garded it as presumption even on the part of the Messiah. The only plausible support to this low view of the phrase is, that vlbg rov Qeov, Son of God, is found in some few places in the Gospels, joined to Xpia-og , Christ ; but, on closer inspection, it is plain that no one of them warrants the conclusion that, at the time of Christ, this name was in common use, as synonymous with that of the Messiah ; and that, therefore, the same ideas were attached to it which were usually associated with the name of the Messiah. With respect to the passages in which Son of God is joined with Christ, we should first distinguish carefully between those in which Christ precedes, and those in which it follows. In the former (e. g. y Matth. xvi. 16 ; John vi. 69 [according to the Textus Keceptus, Griesbach reads 6 aytof rov 6eov~\ ; xi. 27 ; xx. 31), the phrase " Son of God" contains only the more precise determination of the idea of the Christ. The disciples thought Jesus to be the Christ immedi- ately after they united themselves to him (John i. 41) ; . but it was not till after prolonged intercourse that the idea of the Son of God, who had appeared in Christ, was unfolded to them, through the 220 LTJKE I. 35. revelation of the Father. (Matth. xvi. 16.) Again, when the High Priest asks (Matth. xxvi. 63 ; Mark xiv. 61) whether he is the Christ, the Son of God, this question had reference, not to the con- ceptions prevalent among the people, but to what Christ affirmed of himself ; and because of these declarations the people cried out, " If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross," Matth. xxvii. 40. The words of the centurion (Matth. xxvii. 54, and the parallel passages) refer to the heathen mythology. We grant indeed an apparent difference in the case of those passages, in which Son oj God stands first, which, however, are very few, as John i. 50 ; ix. 35, compared with ix. 17. But that, even from these passages, it can not be concluded that Son of God was only a common name for the Messiah, is shown in the particular exposition of them in their connexion. (See Commentary on those places.) Thus there re- main only the passages, Matth. iv. 3, 6 ; viii. 29, and the parallel passages in which Jesus is addressed as Son of God, as in other cases he is called son of David. But these passages occur only in the history of the temptation, or in reference to demoniacs ; we may therefore with the utmost probability infer from them that only the superhuman demonaical power recognized Jesus in his divine nature and dignity. We must, therefore, say, that v log rov Qeov, Son of God, does, indeed designate the Messiah ;* but so far only as he was born of the essence of the Father ; that, therefore, whoever so called him, either acknowledged him as such, or blamed him for declaring himself to be such. Lastly, with respect to the relation of the name Son of God, in as far as it is applied to Christ, and the same name as applicable to man, we have to observe, that viol Qeov, sons of God, or reitva Oeov,1f children of God, are used in a twofold reference, corresponding to the two meanings, which belong to the phrase, as applied to the Saviour. On the one hand, it has reference to the physical existence of men. They are called sons of God, inasmuch as God (indirect- ly) is their Creator. This meaning, however, is very rare ; but * On this construction Schleiermacher's opinion, too, is set aside, who says in the Glaubenslehre, Th. ii., S. 707 : "Son of God' 1 denotes probably not the divine nature alone, but the whole Christ, in his divine and human nature. Passages, such as 1 John i. 7, cer- tainly shew that the physical and metaphysical meanings were conjoined, as, indeed, the Scriptures in general are far from any Nestorian separation of the natures. Still, Son of God denotes the whole Christ, inasmuch as he was born from eternity of the essence of the Father. Son of Man, on the other hand, denotes the whole Christ, inasmuch as he represents the ideal of humanity. ) Tf KVOV is not used of the person of Christ, though naif is. (Matth. xii. 18 ; Acts iii. 13, 26; iv. 27, 30.) This term does not, however, so much correspond to vloc, as to the Hebrew n'rp is?, which is so often applied to the Messiah, especially in the second part of the book of Isaiah. (See note on Acts iii. 13.) TEKVOV could not be used of Christ, for this reason, that the notion of something undeveloped predominates in the word, while vidf denotes what has manly force and energy. LUKE I. 35-39. 221 Ephes. iii. 15, John xi. 52, and Mai. ii. 10, come under this head. Otherwise, even in passages of the Old Testament, as Isa. Ixiii. 16, Deut. xiv. 1, the reference to salvation predominates. In the latter sense it appears also in very many passages of the New Testament (1 John iii. 1, 2 ; v. 2 ; Horn. viii. 14, 16, 17 ; ix. 8 ; Gal. iii. 26, etc.), and denotes the regeneration which, as a new act of creation, restores to the condition of children those who were estranged from God by sin. This reference corresponds to the deeper signification of the name " Son of God," as applied to the Saviour. In regenera- tion there is the likeness of his eternal generation from the essence of the Father ; and in reference to the spiritual children of the one Father, our Lord calls himself also the first-born among many brethren. (Rom. viii. 29 ; Heb. ii. 11.) He who from eternity was Son of God, lived as Son of Man on earth in time, in order to raise the children of men from earth to heaven, that, as children of God, they might be like him, and become partakers of the divine nature. (2 Peter i. 4 ; 1 John iii. 2.) Ver. 36-38. Mary, too, receives a sign (orjuelov, nte), like Zach- arias (i. 20) ; but it is a favourable one. As what had happened to Elisabeth is here made known to Mary from above, so also what had happened to Mary was made known to Elisabeth (ver. 41). Such dispensations were necessary under such extraordinary circumstances; and, just for that reason, we may assume similar facts for the solu- tion of difficulties in those instances where they are not expressly noticed. (See note on Luke ii. 39.) The address concludes with the general truth, that the Divine Omnipotence accomplishes its plans notwithstanding all apparent impossibilities. The words are from Gen. xviii. 14, where they are used of Sarah in similar circum- stances. The truth thus expressed, in its widest generality, should also be conceived as so far limited, that every thing true (priiJM= n 7) is also capable of expression ; for what is contradictory is, as such, not a pj^a, zvord, tiling, and, consequently, impossible with God, precisely because he is God. Mary, believing with childlike humility, submits herself to God ; she acquiesces in her destination for the fulfilment of the divine purposes. The birth of the Saviour became thus an act of her faith also. . Mary's faith repaired Eve's unbelief. (In ver. 36, for the common reading y??pa, which form stands for y^pat, and that again for y?fc ry /cap&'a, lay up in the heart = &to, with the prepositions V?, V^, s, with aV, includes, not merely retaining in the memory, but also turning over and considering the matter with interest.) Ver. 67. There is not, properly speaking, any break here, as * Straws does not hesitate, notwithstanding this decisive point, to hold to his opinion, even in the second edition of his work (B. i., S. 141), though the production of analogies is the only means which ho has in order to give the semblance of support to his arbitrary LUKE I. 67-69. 229 ver. 66 only anticipates certain thoughts. The following prophetic words of Zacharias are rather in immediate connexion with ver. 64. (On -vev^ia ayiov, see note on ver. 15, 41.) It is only to such an elevated moment, in which heavenly power strengthened Zacharias, bodily and spiritually, and raised him above himself, that the follow- ing words are suited, in which he speaks prophetically of his son'a relation to the Messiah, and of the fulfilment of all the hopes which the seers of the Old Testament had excited. Zacharias begins with the main subject (ver. 68-75), and then places John (ver. 76-79) as exercising a preparatory influence, in his proper relation to our Lord, in whom all the promises of the prophets are fulfilled. Although here, too, the work of the Messiah is referred immediately to the people of Israel, and the whole representation bears a national colouring, it is yet free from any alloy of error ; for which reason those special references, as they are based on a truly moral concep- tion of the Messiah's kingdom (ver. 74, 75), admit the same general application, which we have already vindicated above (ver. 16, 54.) The language finally is so strongly tinctured with He- braisms, that it may be re-translated, word for word, into Hebrew a circumstance, which, as already hinted, makes it extremely probable that we have here presented to us family memoirs, which Luke adopted as he found them. As such, these precious narratives have a double value, because they throw light on the circle of ideas in which John grew up : and there is no difficulty whatever in sup- posing that he was made familiar with these by conversation and pos- itive instruction, as it is only in the case of the Saviour that we are compelled to suppose an absolutely free development fro"m within. Ver. 68, 69. In true prophetic inspiration Zacharias contem- plates, as completed, the work of salvation, which appeared now in its germ, in the birth of the forerunner of the Messiah (for which rea- son the Aorists are not to be confounded with the Futures).* His unbelief (ver. 20) appears, therefore, here transmuted into the most assured faith, which enabled him to behold unseen things as visibly present. (On 6 6eo^ rov 'lerpcw/A., the God of Israel, see note on ver. 16. It expresses only the genuine limitations of Scripture, such as were recognized by the Saviour and the Apostles. The relation of the Israelites to the Lord was different from that of all other nations.) In the birth of his son whom Zacharias, how- ever, views only in connexion with the appearance of Christ he sees a rich visitation of God's favour, after long waiting on the part of the pious. ('^moKETrreodai is used quite like ij^a in the Old Tes- * This description ill accords with the supposition that the Gospels were fabricated in the second c*entury, and falsely ascribed to the apostles; for at that time the Church had acquired so little external splendour, that no one could have been prompted to such de- scriptions by its condition. 230 LUKE I. 69-71. tament, which denotes a visitation for punishment, as well as for de- liverance [here of course the latter]. Avrpuoig, redemption = rifts, see more fully on the idea in note on Matth. xx. 28. Ver. 75 plainly for- bids our thinking of political deliverance merely ; but that Zacharias connected external blessings with the appearance of the Messiah, is more than probable, and, regarding the work of the Messiah as com- pleted, not erroneously.) In sending the Messiah, divine grace was revealed as both saving and defending. (Kepaf aw-T/ptaf, horn of salvation = nsw ^n;*, Psalm xviii. 3, is used here with reference to passages like Psalm cxxxii. 17, where we read of the " horn of David." The point of comparison in the figure is the power, which is here conceived as protecting the godly, and punishing enemies.) Yer. 70. The whole matter is at once connected with the hal- lowed company of ancient seers, who had predicted the general fact (the redemption of the people), as well as the special one, that a descendant of David should accomplish it. (Kaflwf eAaA7?<7e sc. 6 0e<5, as God spake, etc., is to be referred to the whole previous sen- tence.) The prophets are conceived as stretching in a continuous succession through the history of the people of Israel, and of our en- tire race. The result of their prophecies appeared at last realized. ('ATT' al&vos, IK TOV altivof, and similar forms of expression, are used with an indefiniteness which must be more precisely deter- mined by the context. They always require, however, that the subject spoken of should be carried back to the beginning of the period [a/wv] to which it naturally belongs. [See Luke i. 2, d-rr' dp^fc.] Here the context indicates a reference of d-rr' al&vog to the origin of the Jewish nation that is, to Abraham [ver. 73], unless it is preferable to go back to the beginning of the human race itself, since the earliest advocates of righteousness and of the fear of God are conceived as prophets. [2 Peter ii. 5 ; Jude, ver. 14.] See more fully on al6v in note on Matth. xii. 31.) Ver. 71. After the intermediate thought, the idea of the salva- tion is again taken up from ver. 69, and is viewed, first of all, as de- liverance from enemies (e^flpo/, inaov^oC). In these words the po- litical view of the Messiah's influence appears to come out most definitely, and assuredly it is here not to be altogether rejected. Here, as in ver. 47, there combined itself with Zacharias' view of the appearance of the Messiah, the contemplation of his completed work, in which the outward corresponds to the inward, as will be the case in the kingdom of God. But that very glance at the distant future, shows that the idea of enemies is to be taken in a deeper sense, and includes all whose life was under the influence of hostile principles. Then, too, this salvation is only one aspect of the Messiah's work ; it has its completion in the serving in holiness and righteousness, harpeveiv iv dcfiorrjri /cat dutaioavvq (ver. 74), and thus also the awr LUKE I. 73-75. 231 e;\;0pwv, salvation from enemies, acquires a deeper meaning, since the mere freeing from the dominion of the Romans would fail to confer any true holiness and righteousness. Ver. 72, 73. The construction proceeds entirely after the He- brew mode (the infinitives irotijaai, nvrjoOrjvai, are put for the common form dg TO Troi-^aai = non nVV, see "Winer's Grammar of New Testament Idioms, p. 256) ; TroiTioai tfAeof, to perform mercy, etc., is evidently not added as something different from the aurrjpia (ver. 71) ; but merely unfolds it. In the words : -rroiijaai eXeog K. r. A., it is not the present that is spoken of, but the past. By the present salvation, mercy was to be shewn also to the fathers in the past. (TLoielv K/teog fterd corresponds with the Hebrew & -roh hs " to be gracious to any one" " to shew favour." Gen. xxiv. 14.) This thought is peculiarly calculated to bring out the spirituality and depth of view expressed in Zacharias' conceptions of the Messiah. The work of the Messiah is viewed as a saving one to the whole body of their forefathers, since in him first they all really received salva- tion and forgiveness, which they had believed in up to the time of his manifestation. The deliverance from enemies appears here to be such as confers benefits on the dead also ; and this shews clearly enough, that the enmity* salvation from which is celebrated is to be viewed as essentially deeper in its character. (The reference to the covenant and oath sworn to Abraham is put, as a part only, for the whole of the revelations and promises of God to the forefathers. The idea of the divine oath [6'p K r] implies something inviolable, and consequently, now fulfilled by the faithful God. It is best to construe 6'p/cov also with {ivrjodiivai [see Is. Ixiii. 7 ; Wisd. of Sol. xviii. 22], so that it stands parallel with diadrjicrjc;.) Ver. 74, 75. Zacharias, resuming the idea of the Gurr$ia in the words : KK %pof TGJV %0pc5v TJ/MV pvodevrag, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, now adds a second thought, expressive of a new effect of the appearance of the Messiah, which exhibits itself at the present time (i, e., according to the prophetic view of Zacharias, who beheld the kingdom of God already complete) viz., d tv daiorirri KOI duccuoovvq, to serve God without fear in holiness and righteousness. In its connexion with the rov dovvai r\\tiv^ to give to us, the clause marks the true worship of God, described in it, as an effect and a gift resulting from the coming of the Messiah. It is not a mere consequence of the withdrawal of ene- mies, requiring the emphasis to be laid on a'06/3^, but something * To apply it merely to political enemies, as the Romans, is inadmissible. They are not indeed, to be excluded altogether ; and Zacharias was not in error, iu anticipating an aiured political condition of his nation; it was nothing but the sin of the Jews that had made them then subject to the Romans, as they had before been to the Chaldeans true repentance would have made them free again. 232 LUKE I. 75-77. newly bestowed never before realized. The words are parallel with all those passages of the prophets which connect ,the estab- lishment of righteousness with the appearance of the Mesiash. This view alone is in agreement with what follows in ver. 77, where Zacharias first speaks of the gift of the knowledge of deliverance, and of its connexion with the forgiveness of sins ; while John was to awaken the feeling of need, the Saviour was appointed to pro- vide the holiness and righteousness themselves, and the Aarpei'a, service, which springs from them. A.arpeveiviv UOLOTTJTI aal ditcatoovvq, to serve in holiness, etc., may be appropriately compared with Trpotr- Kvvelv iv TrvevfiaTi not dJifjdeia, worship in spirit and truth (John iv. 23), which also stands connected with the appearing of the Messiah. In Ephes. iv. 24, both terms (daioTrjg and SutaLoavvrj) are used, just as in this place, to mark the new man created after God. (See also 1 Thess. ii. 10 ; Tit. i. 8.) The two terms here include the whole extent of true piety. Only, uotog = T>?ft, holy, applies rather to the pious man's relation to God ; ditcacog = p-s righteous, to his relation to his fellows.* kutaioavvr], righteousness, is here conceived more after the manner of the Old Testament. (See more fully on this point in note on Bom. iii. 21.) In the concluding words of ver. 75, Trdoag rag jj/iepof fjfj&v, all our days, a more earthly concep- tion of Messiah's kingdom seems again to shew itself, since its glory is limited to the duration of life. The words may, however, be viewed as a simple expression of the indefinitely protracted enjoy- ment of the blessings of the Messiah, whose kingdom is most plainly designated (in ver. 33) as a lasting one. (The words r7\q faijs are spurious ; they were added as explanatory of 7//w3v.) Ver. 76. Zacharias now first speaks of his son, and of his rela- tion to the Saviour as his prophet and forerunner, (npo^?/-^ in^ioTov, prophet of the highest, stands in contrast with v leg viftio-ov, Son of the highest, verse 32. On Kafolodai, see note on Luke i. 35.) TLponopeveadai, go before, and Kroipdaai odovg, prepare his ivays, de- scribe John's work according to the terms of the Old Testament. (See Isa. xl. 3, and note on Matth. iii. 3.) That work was to awaken a sense of need, the satisfying of which was to be ac- complished by the Saviour himself. The words : -npo -rrpoa^ov Kvpiov, before the face of the Lord, contain again, as in verse 43, an intimation of the divine nature of the Messiah, to which we are also led by the actions ascribed, and the epithets applied to him in the following words. The extent and clearness of Zacharias' views respecting the mystery of the manifestation of God to mankind, cannot be further determined. Probably the stream of divine light * See Polybivs (xxiii. 10, 8), who thus characterizes these relations : rd /ztv npdf rot)f dvOpunovf 6inaia, rd <5 Trpdf roi)f 0eoi)f oats. LUKE I. 77, 78. 233 which poured through his soul at this sacred moment, bore him beyond the bounds of his everyday knowledge. Ver. 77. Zacharias proceeds to describe the labours of John, using the same construction as above, verse 74, ff. The yv&ais T&V dvdpdmuv. In itself, the term might be appropriately com- pared with the Hebrew nw^, shoot, according to passages such as Isa. iv. 2 ; Jer. xxiii. 5 ; Zech. iii. 8 ; vi. 12 (where the LXX. trans- late it by dvaroXri), but that the word i-nifyavat following it, seems to make the former view preferable. The rising, namely, is put for the rising sun itself (Mai. iv. 2), which gives light to the wanderers, and shews them the right way. The addition of tf v^ovg, from on high, marks the phenomenon as a heavenly one, descending hither from a higher system. ("Ti/>of = tmtt.) Ver. 79. In these concluding words there is reference to pas- sages in the Old Testament (particularly Isa. ix. 1 ; Ix. 1), in which the Saviour is described as the light of a world shut up in the night of ignorance and alienation from God. (See Matth. iv. 16.) The expression : KV OKIO, davdrov KaOrj^evoi, corresponds exactly to the Hebrew M.5>is -f^a las) 11 ., Isa. ix. 1. (On fi.i^s, see note on Matth. iv. 16.) Lastly, restoration to the way of peace is described as the result of the enlightening of those who sit in darkness. ('06b$ elpi'ivrjg, way of peace, denotes that walk, that course of life, which is carried on with inward peace, and leads thither as its final aim. This presupposes the absence of peace in those that sit in darkness.) Ver. 80. A concluding formula, which depicts, in its general features, the physical and spiritual growth of the Baptist, and speaks of his life up to the time of his public appearance, con- cludes the family history of Zacharias. A similar formula closes likewise the family history of Mary (ii. 40, 52), which may indicate, perhaps, that both memoirs are by the same author. The words : r\v KV ralg ip^oi^, he was in the deserts, refer to i. 15, and denote the Nazarite character of the Baptist's life. ("Ep7?juof = is-rfc. does not mean strictly a desert, but still a comparatively uninhabited tract of country. The solitude of his early life seems intended to be contrasted with the dvddei^, shelving, as the formal opening of his official labours as a prophet. On dvadsiitvviu, see note on Luke x. 1.) 5. BIRTH, CIRCUMCISION, AND PRESENTATION OF JESUS IN THE TEMPLE. (Luke ii. 1-40.) A few months after the birth of John, Jesus was also born. The Evangelist first narrates how, by the leading of Providence, an LUKE II. 1, 2. 235 external political circumstance was made the occasion of Mary's journeying from Nazareth, her usual dwelling-place (Luke i. 56), to Bethlehem, the original residence of her family, where, agreeably to the prophecies, the Messiah was then bora. (See note on Matth. ii. 6.) A decree of the heathen emperor Augustus brought the mother of our Lord to the city of David, to shew that " the king's heart is in the hand of the Lord as the rivers of water : he turneth it whithersoever he will." (Prov. xxi. 1.) Ver. 1. The previous verse gave by anticipation, and only briefly, some notices about the Baptist. The words iv fadvaig rjftepai^, in those days, refer, therefore, to the history of John's birth detailed in the former chapter. The passage contains some not inconsidera- ble historical difficulties, which have been employed by the advo- cates of the mythical interpretation, to demonstrate the unhistorical character of Luke's Gospel. However, Savigny's investigations into the Roman taxation, contained in the Zeitschrift fiir geschichtliche JRechtswissenschaft, B. vi.,have shewn that Augustus did, in fact, con- template the introduction of a uniferm system of taxation throughout the whole Roman empire a fact which had long been doubted. (Liv. epit. lib. 134 ; Dio. Cass., liii. 22 ; Isidor. orig., v. 36 ; Cassidor, iii. 52 ; Suidas, s. v., a7roypa0??.) That this undertaking was ex- tended to Palestine, too, though not at that time a Roman province, is divested of all that appears strange, if we take the drroypatyri to mean the mere registering of the landed estates, and not an assess- ment of property the proper term for which is d-n-cmp^ . The emperor might well take the liberty of making such a register, con- sidering the dependence of the Jewish kings on him, a dependence so great that the Jews had, along with the oath of allegiance to Herod, to take one to the emperor. (See Tholuck's G-laubwiirdig- keit der evangelischen G-eschichte, S. 191.) Ver. 2. The words of ver. 2, which seem to fix the enrolment with greater historical precision, are still more difficult, since the most obvious meaning does not agree with the accounts of historians ; for the Kvpijviog* (Quirinus) here spoken of was proconsul of Syria at a much later period, since, about the close of Herod's life, Sentius Saturninus, after him, Quinctilius Varus, and not till after both of them, Publius Sulpicius Quirinus, were respectively invested with this dignity. (Joseph. Ant. xvi. 13 ; Tacit, annal., iii. 68.) If, there- fore, the census were meant, which, according to Joseph, xviii. i. 1, was made by Quirinus in Syria and Palestine, the birth of Jesus would have to be placed ten years later whereby the whole chrono- * Joscphus (Ant. xviii. 1, 1) says of him: Kvpyvioc 6, T&V etc; r?)v flov dv!/p. nit; Tf d/lArtf dpxuf tiriTETefeKuf, Kal diu TTuauv 6(^Evcaf &f Ko.1 virarof -yeveaOai, rd re SN^WJ. See Gen. xxv. 24 ; Luke ii 21.) As there was no room in the inn (Kard^vpa = gevodoxelov), she laid the infant down in the ^drvrj, manger. .(See ver. 12, 16.) This indicates that it was a stable which the mother of our Lord was obliged to choose for her resting-place, as the house was occupied. Ancient tradition speaks of a OTTTJ^CUOV, cave, as the place where Jesus was born. They were frequently used, in mountainous districts, as folds for flocks. As it is mentioned as early as Justin Martyr (dial. c. Tryph. Jud., p. 304), and Origen (contra Gels. I., xi. 3), and is in no way improbable in itself, it may, perhaps, be looked upon as es- 238 LUKE II. 7-14. tablished. (On Trpwroro/cof, see note on Matth. i. 25. STrapyavow, to wrap in swaddling clothes, occurs elsewhere only in ver. 12.) Ver. 8, 9. 8 The communication of the news of what took place in the sacred night is again limited to the humble unknown circle of a few shepherd families to whom this very cave, which our Lord chose for his first dwelling, might belong. The unostentatious cha- racter which adorns the whole history of Jesus, is manifest in this feature also. The shepherds were, doubtless, like Simeon, ver. 25, waiting for the consolation of Israel ; the angel announced to their desire the fulfilment of all God's promises in Christ. Although ideas of the Messiah were spread through the whole nation, yet the sacred Scriptures make a distinction between the rude, carnal expectations of the mass, and the hopes of the few nobler spirits, which were founded on a deep-felt religious and moral need. ('AypauAew, to re- main in the open field, particularly by night. In the words ajy^oq irceoTrj, the idea of something sudden and unexpected in the appear- ance is conveyed. Aoa tcvpiov = rnrn -na:?, the radiant light, which is imagined as floating round all heavenly appearances. Ver. 10, 11. We must explain the contents of the angeFs an- nouncement by the previous more definite passages. (See i. 17, 32, 33, 74, 75, 78.) As the idea of the remission of sins is involved in the CTWTTfp, Saviour (ver. 78), so Kvpiog, Lord, implies the divine dig- nity of the Sin-destroyer. (On Aa6f, see note on Luke i. 68.) Ver. 12. The angel, of his own accord, gives to the believing shepherds a sign (a^etov, M'.N), which is not in itself necessarily a miraculous one. Still we may lay the stress on evp/fcrere, ye "shall find, to which dvevpov, they found, answers in ver. 16. In that case we need seek no external circumstances by which the shepherds were guided to look for the child just where he was ; a secret spiritual influence guided them to the right place through the darkness of the night. Ver. 13. This representative of the heavenly world, who com- municated the joyful intelligence, was suddenly joined (&^aitj)vrjg ijKve.ro = i^ea~7j, ver. 9) by a heavenly host (arpa-ia ovpdviog, = b^n N?S), transferring the employments of their higher existence to this poor earth, which so rarely echoes with the pure praise of God. In this appearance there is prefigured the full realization of the kingdom of God, which secures the perfect union of things heavenly and earthly. Ver. 14. It is from this import of the angel's appearance, and its relation to the birth of the Messiah, that the words of the ansrelic ' O song of praise are to be explained. Since all that was desired was restored by the Messiah, and his work is contemplated as complete, it is more suitable to supply iari, is, than ecru, let there be, which latter gives to the words the form of a wish. On this the division LUKE II. 14. 239 of the words depends. If we put a period after , since he stands before the people as a sign of gathering as forming a spiritual centre. In like manner, in ver. 32, o>f e/.f d?roKa/U>i/>n> idv&v, a light to enlighten the Gentiles, refers to passages, such as Isa. xlii. 6 ; [John i. 4;] Isa. xxv. 7. The being covered [ta'in \is, Isa. xxv. 7] is opposed to d-nondXv^. But the blessing of the hea- then is, on the other hand, a " glory" of Israel. Aad^ and Zdvos , are here interchanged, as Israel is also called dvo$ , John xi. 48, ff. It is only when used in the plural that tQvr\ tj^a has the meaning " heathen.") Ver. 33, 34. The parents of Jesus did not wonder, probably, so much at the thoughts uttered concerning their son's mission and influence, as that the Spirit uniformly testified from the most various quarters to his high spiritual dignity and importance. (The reading 'luaity for 7rar?/p is evidently the offspring of doctrinal scrupulousness. Copyists feared that the term might be misunder- stood.) Simeon's being here represented to us as blessing the Saviour, must be explained on the principle stated at Luke ii. 21 and Matth. iii. 15. On the principle, "the less is blessed of the greater" (Heb. vii. 7), Simeon here appears exalted ahove the Saviour, just as do John who baptizes him (Luke ii. 46), and the Rabbins whom Jesus questions. In his human develop- ment, the Saviour takes his place among men according to the ordinary stages of human development ; as a child, therefore, he is really a child, and consequently in subordination (verse 51) to those in the more advanced stages of life. Yet in every period of his life, and in each stage of his gradual development, he unfolded himself sinlessly, and thus exhibited in each separate stage its own pure ideal of excellence. In the succeeding context, Simeon specifies more particularly Christ's work, which is viewed as discriminating and separating according to the qualities of men, and as causing ruin as well as blessing. A slight intimation of the path of sorrow by which the end must be attained, is then appended. (Luke xxiv. 26.) The figure employed, to which the expression refers, is that of a stone (Isa. xxviii. 16 ; Dan. ii. 34 ; Zech. iii. 9 ; Matth. xxi. 42) ; which becomes a npoaKo^a, stone of stumbling (1 Pet. ii. 7, 8) to the proud, who stumble at it, but, to the humble, a means of elevation from their low condition. 'Avdaraoig is here simply -the opposite of TTTwOTf.) In these opposite departments of his work, the Saviour manifests himself according to divine intention and ar- 246 LUKE II. 34, 35. rangeraent. (KeloOai, to be set, is by no means absolutely synonymous with elvai, to be; the term combined with el?, involves a reference to an intention a purpose, Phil. i. 17.) And it is not merely at his first appearance, but also as his work extends through the whole of the world's history, that the Saviour manifests himself at all times and places, quite as much in the way of punitive justice, as in that of redeeming efficacy ; the two are the mutually supple- mentary parts of our Lord's work. (The remark that not all, but many individuals among the people, were affected by it, may be thus explained, that, so far as Christ's intention is concerned, all should be saved ; but unbelief prevents this result ; to many he is salvation, to many ruin.) In the concluding words, not el$ GT^KLOV dvTiheyonevov, and for a sign spoken against, there is an intimation of Christ's passion. Those who stumble at him are also those who speak against him (avrf/UyovTe?.) ('Aim/leyeiv is taken as a general expression of hostile disposition, which involves the act also.) But even in this dvrikoyia the Saviour appears as a sign, set before the world by the Father, and, that as much before the unbelieving as the believing world, though indeed in different relations. The ex- pression is to be taken in the same way as Isa. viii. 18. God speaks to the world by the Saviour and his entire complex manifestation by the Man with the cross and the crown of thorns, and the eternal Son of God, the Judge of the quick and the dead in the mighty language of fact, and sets him up, in truth, as a miraculous sign for mankind, as Isaiah and his sons, with their symbolical names, were in their time. (See note on Matth. i. 23.) Ver. 35. At the mention of the opposition of the world to the Anointed, the far-seeing prophet gives a glance at the development of the blessed mother's life. She who gave birth to the Son of God was still, as such, not born of God. She was, as all mankind are by nj?.'ure, -yewrp-^ yvvaiicog, born of a woman (see note on Matth. xi. 11), and therefore, like them, needed regeneration, which cannot be ef- fected without affliction, Eev. vii. 14. But the words : T?JV i>v%rjv tiiehevoerai potato,, a sivord shall pierce thy soul, cannot contain the mere idea of suffering, without including that of consolation ; this would cast a shade over the joyful tone of the whole prophecy. The idea of the deepest, most exquisite agony of soul, rather includes here the idea of salvation and perfecting through it, just as the dvTtktycoOai. (ver. 34) comprises the victory over every dvn^oyia. Mary's distress, which was one with her Son's, appears at once kill- ing and quickening. At the sight of him she must endure not only the struggle of a mother's love, but that of faith also, which ap- peared to die in her along with him, who had been bestowed from above. The revealing of the secret depths of the hearts of the good as well as the bad is declared to be the end of this discrimin- I LUKE II. 35-38. 247 ating, judicial work. Christ appears here as Judge of the world, even during the progress of the human race ; wherever he appears, his pervading agency compels to a decision for or against. (The diaXoytanoi, thoughts, are here again, as was ohserved in note on Luke i. 51, connected with the heart (itapdia). So also the less usual terms, imvoia [Acts viii. 22], vnovota [1 Tim. vi. 4], vorj^a [Baruch ii. 8.] All these expressions, as indeed the etymology intimates, denote actionsof the vovg or A.oyof, and correspond to the word " thoughts." Heart can- not therefore denote that power to which they belong. But the Sacred Scriptures, according to a view which is psychologically quite correct, never conceive of the active exercise of the thinking faculty apart from the inclinations, and the bent of a man's whole life ; they refer every rising thought to the latent inclination of the heart.* As the central point of personal life, the Bible regards the heart = A [see Prov. iv. 23 ; e^ri fiiswrn ;& -o.] Hence KK napdi&v, out of the heart, points out quite correctly the impulse given to the thoughts, from the heart, though they themselves belong to the mind. Ver. 36, 37. One other individual is mentioned to us by namef out of the pious circle at Jerusalem probably a very narrow one Anna, who also had received the Spirit (Ilpoffnjrig = Tn>Kv\ia a-yiov K%ovaa, ver. 25.) It is remarked, as the distinction of this woman, otherwise unknown to us, that, although eighty-four years of age, she had been united with a husband only seven years, and spent her whole remaining life in widowhood. It is the tender fidelity with which she treasured the memory of her husband, that is here brought into notice. Her piety is conformed to the Old Testament model. Her religious life assumed an ascetic and Nazarite form. (See i. 15.) Ver. 38. She repaired to the temple at the same time, perhaps at the hour of prayer (tyiardvai, to appear suddenly, see Luke ii. 9), and joined in the praise of God, when she received the intelligence that all her hopes were fulfilled in the appearance of the Messiah. (The term dvdonohoyeiadai means, in classic Greek, " to strike a bar- gain," " to agree," " to make mutual concessions." In the Hellen- istic language it is used for rnin, to praise, Psalm Ixxix. 13. 'Eo- HokoysioOai is used in the same sense in Gen. xxix. 35, and the simple verb, in Job xl. 9. It is found nowhere else in the New Testament.) The aged woman imparts the joy of her heart to the like-minded * Old Michael Montaigne has a very beautiful remark in the Slimme der Wahrheit, Th. i., S. 4 : " In man," he says, " we may overlook the head, though it is always good not to do SQ, if it be in the right place, and gives birth to nothing wrong ; but the heart is still the main thing. We need the head for life only, but the heart for death also." \ Even Schleiermacher has observed, that this mention of a second individual, who reiteiatcs Simeon's testimony, is against the mythical character of the narrative. One event of that sort would have satisfied the tendency in the church to the formation of myths. 248 , LUKE II. 38-40. members composing the circle of the Messiah's friends in Jerusalem. (On TtpoadexeaOat Mrpumv, see Luke i. 68 ; ii. 25. Avrpumg is here put for Avrpwrffc . Hepi. avrov refers to the object of praise, not, in- deed, expressly mentioned viz., the Messiah who was come. Ver. 39, 40. After the completion of the ceremony of purifica- tion (ver. 22), the mother and child returned to Nazareth. The mention of the final limit of the journey, from its being Mary's actual place of constant abode, does not directly exclude other journeys, (See the subsequent narrative of Jesus' childhood.) At this point the memoirs evidently become more general,, and vTrsarpe^jav el$ rr{v . Takihaiav, they returned into Galilee, is not so much a new fact in- tended to be recorded by the narrator, as a form of conclusion. The more particular and accurate accounts were wanting here, and there- fore he brings back the mother and the child to the place where he knew they constantly resided (Ilokig avr&v, see Luke i. 56.) The last verse, just as was related of John (i. 80), notices that purely human development of our Lord, corporeal and spiritual, to which even his life in its human aspect was subject.) The only peculiar fe? ture is that which is added hi the words -rrtypovfievov oofyias, filled with wisdom. But that the idea of wisdom is to be taken relatively, is shewn partly by ii. 52, which describes the wisdom of Jesus him- self as still unfolding itself ; and partly by the idea of childhood, to which the character of wisdom always belongs only relatively. But this is precisely the idea of the Messiah in his human development, that he presents each stage of life pure and unsullied by sin ; yet so as never to obliterate the character of the stage itself; which would be the case on the supposition that the child Jesus possessed perfect wisdom.* Xoptf ffi> rf av-6, grace was upon him (see ii. 25), not merely expresses God's being well pleased in Jesus, but intimates also the effective cause of the pure unspotted development of the Saviour's life. Grace is nothing but love reveal- ing itself shewing itself actively ; and in every moment of the life of Jesus the love of God shone forth in active exercise in him. He was completely a child completely a youth completely a man ; and thus hallowed all the stages of human development ; but noth- ing incongruous ever appeared in him, which would have been the case if utterances of a riper age had escaped him in childhood. Here, at the close of the history of Jesus' infancy, we must glance at the relation of the narratives of Matthew and Luke, of which it is maintained, that they do not supplement, but contradict each * ScMeiermacher observes very justly in the Glaubenslehre, Th. ii., S. 178 "If we choose to deny the gradual development of the Saviour, we must either suppose, that his whole childhood was a mere semblance, and that in his first year, for instance, he had entire command of language ; or we must return to the solution of Cerinthus. and sepa- rate that in which Christ was similar to all men from that which was archetypal in him." LUKE II. 40. 249 other ; that they are the offspring of totally different traditions, and are, as it were, lines running parallel with each other. According to , Luke, the parents of Jesus live at Nazareth, and his birth at Beth- lehem seems the result of accidental circumstances ; in Matthew, on the contrary, they would seem themselves to have lived at Bethle- hem. Further, Luke's narrative of the annunciation appears irre- concileable with Joseph's being ignorant at first of the nature of Mary's pregnancy, and his being informed by the angel, as Matthew says ; and again, the adoration of the Magi, Herod's slaughter of the children, and the flight into Egypt, as recorded by Matthew, appear irreconcileable with Luke's account of the journey to Jerusalem for the purification. On closer consideration, however, the first objec- tion, that Matthew appears to follow a different tradition as to the residence of Jesus' parents, resolves itself into something purely ne- gative. For Matthew evidently follows no tradition whatever con- cerning the residence of Jesus' parents, and gives no remarks at all as to time and place ; he merely recounts the facts. The circum- stance of his naming Bethlehem (ii. 1) as the birthplace of Jesus, happens, as the following verses shew, only in consequence of that place being so assigned in a prophecy of the Old Testament. Other- wise, Matthew would hardly have named the place of birth at all. Just so he would have been content with the general statement, d$ TO, pepr] rijg Takikaiag, into the district of Galilee (ii. 22), had not a re- ference to the prophecies induced him (ii. 23) further to mention Nazareth. Besides, the passage Matth. ii. 22, 23, does not oblige us, as Sieffert asserts, to suppose that Matthew was ignorant of Mary's having been at Nazareth before the birth of Jesus ; we have only to suppose that, during the .stay in Egypt, it had appeared de- sirable to Joseph to establish himself at Bethlehem, but from fear of Archelaus, he gave up the plan, and returned to Nazareth. Accord- ingly, we can only say of Matthew, that he passes over the particulars of place, and notices incidentally one or two points, which must be more precisely fixed by a reference to Luke, the more exact narrator. Next, as regards the supposed contradictions in the details of the two narratives, no such thing as an impossibility of reconciling them can be talked of, if only in Luke ii. 39 the words v-rrearpetyav d$ TTJV Takikaiav, they returned into Galilee, be understood with proper lati- tude. To regard this expression in its immediate connexion with ver. 40, as a form of conclusion, and, consequently, as intended only to point out the habitual abode of Jesus, where the development described in ver. 40 proceeded, is at least an available mode of es- cape, which no one, who feels himself called upon to avoid the quick- sands of myths, will hesitate to adopt. There remains then, in fact, nothing in the two narratives necessarily contradictory ; for no one will seriously urge the objection, which Schleiermacher brings against 250 LUKE II. 40, 41. the supposition of a return from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, after the purification was accomplished viz., that the return is improbable, because the mother would have found herself there in inconvenient circumstances ; for these circumstances were evidently produced by the enrolment, which, in the nature of the case, increased for only a few days the population of the town. The relation of the ac- counts in the two Gospels is therefore such, that both may be very well reduced to a connected whole by supplying the little circum- stances that are passed over in silence. And what historical narra- tion, composed by different historians, who give their accounts inde- pendently of each other, and who follow different points of view in them, does not stand in need of such supplementing ? It must be confessed, that the reconciliation of the two Gospels in reference to Joseph is more difficult. Yet the difficulty lies not so much in the reconciliation of their accounts, as in the obscurity of the recorded event, which can be cleared away only by a comparison of both. For it is left uncertain from Matth. i. 18, 19, how and when Joseph became aware of Mary's being with child. Evpt^, she was found, however, appears to indicate, that Mary did not tell Joseph any thing of it ; and what we read in Luke i. 36, 39, 56, in- creases this probability to almost a certainty ; for, according to these passages, Mary went to Elisabeth when the latter was six months advanced in pregnancy, stayed there the next three months, and returned shortly before Elisabeth was delivered. Such a visit of three months, supposes that Mary was already married ;* Mary's pregnancy was thus already discovered before the journey, viz., by the pronubis, the n'in'fcw, who conceived suspicion and imparted their distrust to Joseph. Then followed the divine disclosure (Matth. i. 20, if.) ; Joseph immediately took Mary as his wife, and she went to Elisabeth. Mary, therefore, never came into the position of her- self making the disclosure to Joseph. This pain was spared her by the divine arrangements. How could it have been otherwise ? J'he events that had happened to her were of so extraordinary a kind, that she could not communicate them without having any other voucher than her word. The same childlike faith with which she said : " Behold the handmaid of the Lord ; be it unto me according to ' O thy word," could not but inspire her with the confidence, that divine compassion would find ways and means to satisfy her intended hus- band that she was the pure bride of heaven. * Virgins and brides were not allowed to journey. (Philo de leg., sec. II., p. 650 Misch. Ketuboth, op. 1, sec. 6., Hug. Gutachten gegen Strauss S. 85.) [E. LUKE II. 41. 6. JESUS CONVEKSES WITH THE PRIESTS IN THE TEMPLE. (Luke ii. 41-52.) The import of this apparently insignificant occurrence the only one told us of the life of Jesus up to the time of his public appear- ance demands a few preliminary remarks. Viewed in its con- nexion with his entire manifestation, it presents to us unquestion- ably the sacred moment, when the higher divine consciousness arose within him. As was partially noticed before, the Saviour, in his human manifestation, followed the general course of human devel- opment ; and though the child's consciousness in him was a pure, holy, and glorified one, yet it was a child's, and, consequently, not a divine one.f This latter gradually formed itself in the progress of his general development (Luke i. 80 ; ii. 40, 52), and on occasion of his being present for the first time in the holy city, to which the child's desire had probably long aspired, the thought then first pre- sented itself distinctly to him, as glowing embers burst into a flame, that lie was God's Son, and God his Father. The divine nature of Jesus, appears, therefore, a distinct thing from the knowledge of that nature. To the latter he attained gradually, as the result of the progress of his human development. The springing up of that consciousness bore him at that instant to his real home, of which the temple appeared to him the type, and, in spiritual rapture, he might forget the earthly representatives of his heavenly Father. But this forgetting was not in him an act of disobedience, but, in fact, of superior obedience. He followed faithfully the stronger attraction from above, and therefore he reunited himself to his parents with childlike submission, when they reminded him of the rights of pa- rents, while they had forgotten the parental duties.^ The mother had done wrong in having neglected her highest duty to God the care of the divine child a deep symbol of the relation of the human and the divine agencies in the work of regeneration, in which, after a similar manner, the new man, in his birth, is entrusted to his soul, * That Strauss reckons even this occurrence among the mythical portions, proves un- deniably tho exaggerated, wanton rage for doubt that possesses him. A history, which might cast an imputation of disobedience on Jesus, or of a want of care on his mother, certainly would not have been fabricated in later times. f If the child's consciousness precludes the element of divinity, why not equally the man's consciousness? The distance of the two states from each other is lost in the infin- ite interval which separates both from Deity. It may well be questioned whether in fix- ing the moment when the divine consciousness first developed itself in Jcsu?, Olshausen is not venturing beyond his depth. Who shall say that Jesus was ever destitute of it 7 K. \ That the mother had committed any wrong does not appear in the narrative. Jesus rebukes only her undue anxiety regarding him, reminding her of his higher relations and duties. K. 252 LUKE II. 41-43. which has to fulfil the duties of a mother towards him ! In that exalted moment of the first kindling of this divine spiritual light, and of its piercing through the human covering, this occurrence thus opens to us one far reaching glance, but only again to let fall the veil. But it is precisely in this historical purity that the divine character of our Gospels shews itself, particularly when compared with the apocryphal ones, "which fill up this veiled period with absurd fables. During this period the divine plant of righteousness was invisibly unfolding within itself ; and the reason that nothing is narrated of this period doubtless is, that there was nothing special to narrate. Jesus presented doubtless the ideal of a quiet, truly childlike child and youth ; and it was only in the depth of his soul that his nature was unfolding, which, at most, may have been betrayed by his look and bearing. The influences from the spiritual world, which he was intended to manifest, gradually descended into him ; and all sur- rounding circumstances, conversations, sights, and reading of the Scriptures, must have become the occasions of one spring after an- other opening in him. For, to imagine that, according to the ordi- nary process of training, any formative power was exercised over him, or direction given to his mind, through Egyptian, Essenaic, or Rabbinical wisdom, is altogether at variance with our conception of the Messiah, whom we are to regard as absolutely determining and controlling all agencies. His development is, therefore, purely inde- pendent, and altogether internal a continual outpouring from the heavenly world into the earthly tabernacle, of which outward cir- cumstances must be considered as merely the exciting cause. It is in this light that we are to view his position towards the priests in the temple. The questions he put to the priests, and their answers, were exciting, awakening incidents for his inner life. But the idea that Jesus taught in the temple, must be rejected as monstrous. A child teaching, demonstrating, would be a contradiction which it is impossible the God of order could have designed. 'A/covwv and fae- pwrwv, hearing, and asking (ver. 46), point plainly enough to his capacity for receiving impressions. The Scriptures and the lofty hopes which they excite, formed probably the basis of his questions. He inquired respecting himself ; and we may say, the whole endea- vour and desire of the child Jesus was nothing but a longing for a revelation of himself. The miraculous union of the opposites in the God-man, the conjoining of temporal and eternal, of individual and universal, is here presented before the reader's mind in its growth ; and ruling and serving, unfettered dominion and child-like submission, are here united to form an ineffable whole, which the * The words ol yovctf aiirov, contain an intimation, that Joseph the father was yet living ; but from this time he does not re-appear in the Gospel-history. He died, prob- ably before the public appearance of Jesus. See Matth. xiii. 55. LUKE II. 41-48. 253 parents of Jesus, like unregenerate men in general, might indeed wonder at (ver. 48), but were not able to understand. Ver. 41-43. According to the law of Moses (Ex. xxiii. 14, ff. ; xxxiv. 23), the males had to go up to Jerusalem three times yearly to the principal feasts ;* children accompanied them in these jour- neys from their twelfth year. They were called at that age rnton \sa, sons of the law, and were then under an obligation to keep the law. This time of legal maturity coincides, therefore, very appropriately with the first awakening of his spirit to a higher consciousness. The feast of the passover lasted seven days (to which TeteiuoavTuv rag ^epaf, ver. 43, refers), the first and last of which were observed as Sabbaths, Exod. xii. 14 ; Deut. xvi. 4. Yer. 44-46. The parents, accustomed to the thoughtful and obedient habits of the child, commence .their journey without him, sup- posing, doubtless, that he was among their kindred or acquaintances. Swodia from owodevu, signifies one of the festal caravans, which were common among the pilgrims journeying to the feasts, to afford each other more protection and convenience on the journey. (See the charming description of such a pilgrimage in Strauss' beautiful romance, " Helorts Pilgrimage."'} It was not till after three days, full of anxiety and trouble, that they found the holy child in the holy place. The lepov, temple, (to be distinguished from vaoc, see note on Luke i. 9), was an extensive structure, and had many halls and separate rooms, in which judges pronounced their decisions, or Kabbins taught their schools. In such a school (B^*) we have to imagine Jesus. Ver. 47, 48. In that company the child was an object of uni- versal astonishment ; and this again was a matter of wonder to his parents.. Though informed of the high destiny of their child, they could not comprehend this phenomenon. (Iivveoig generally stands in the same relation to p6vrjv is put for rov XpiaTov, as in Matth. xiii. 41. In the passage Mark xi. 10, /3aatAe/a TOV AaQid occurs, Inasmuch as David is viewed as a type of Messiah the king. MATTHEW III. 2. 261 Qeov being left to be supplied (Luke xii. 32, and frequently). In the Old Testament, the expression n:n rssV, or eprfVj? his'??, does not occur, nor does it appear, except in the later Jewish writings. In the Apocrypha we meet with j3aaiX.da QEOV as early as Wisdom x. 10. On the other hand, the idea of the kingdom of God pervades the whole of the books of the Old Testament, but appears in its most mature form in the prophets. See Isa. ii. 1-4 ; Micah iv. 3, ff. ; Isa. xi. 1, ff. ; Psalm Ixxxv. 11, 12 ; Jer. xxiii. 5, ff. ; xxxi. 31, ff. ; xxxii. 37, ff. ; xxxiii. 14, ff. ; Ezek. xxxiv. 23, ff. ; xxxvii. 24, ff.) Daniel describes the expected holy state of things, which all the prophets regarded as future, expressly as a kingdom of everlast- ing duration. (Dan. ii. 44 ; vii. 14, 27.) Just as the Messiah also is often described as a king (in which respect David is especially re- garded as his type, Dan. ix. 25 ; Psalm ii. 6 ; Zech. xiv. 9 ; Ezek. xxxvii. 24.) The fundamental idea of the anticipated kingdom of God, as presented in the Old Testament, does not differ from that of the New. The idea of a kingdom necessarily implies the dis- tinction of the governor and the governed. But in the kingdom of God the divine will appears as ruling absolutely. In so far, there- fore, as in the sinful world the will of God is conceived as being subordinated, the period of his absolute rule must yet be future. The kingdom of God, therefore, forms a contrast to the kingdom of sin, or of its representative, the ruler of this world, ap^uv rov Koopov TOVTOV. The coming of the former kingdom involves the destruc- tion of the latter : the prevalence of the latter limits the influence of the former. But- as the Old Testament, in its prophecies does not usually develope the ideas, which are the subjects of its contem- plation, and especially does not present them in their gradual un- folding in successive ages, but, as it were, concentrated in a single picture ; so also with its declarations respecting the kingdom of God. The prophetic communications contain lively delineations of it, agreeably to which the dominion of sin, both internal and exter- nal, is depicted as overthrown, and the dominion of God, and his will, established ; but as the external and internal are not kept per- fectly distinct by them, but are blended together, succession of time is also particularly neglected ; the great outline of the world's spirit- ual progress is drawn at once in grand perspective, and events separ- ated by wide intervals of time are brought into juxtaposition. What is included in the Old Testament as a germ, appears in the New in its free expansion, and thus first reveals in its fulness the fundamental idea which it includes. The kingdom of God appears, accordingly, as a kingdom always existing established among fallen men con- temporaneously with the first announcement of the Gospel typi- cally represented in the Mosaic theocracy bestowed in Christ essen- tially complete in its conception since then secretly advancing 262 MATTHEW III. 2. in the souls of men destined to a final conquest over every thing, and to penetrate harmoniously all forms both of outward and inward life throughout creation. With respect to the manner in which the New Testament Scriptures unfold this idea of the king- dom of God, they distinguish, first, clearly between its external and internal character. In the latter relation, the kingdom of Q od ap- pears according to the New Testament conception as actually pre- sent, not .merely in the person of the Saviour himself, but also in his believing followers, who were translated into the spirit of his life. In the spirit's inner life and consciousness i. e., in faith, the absolute dominion of the divine is realized. We find it thus viewed as the kingdom of God in the soul, in Luke xvii. 21 : i\ (laoiteia TOV Qeov ivrbs vfj&v ianv. (See Bom. xiv. 17.) But in its external relation, the kingdom of God appears in the New Testament also as yet future, and still an object of desire. The Spirit of Christ, as the principle which secures an immediate dominion in the depths of the inward life, strives for an unconditional supremacy over all its out- ward relations. But the extension of this divine dominion in Christ to external circumstances, is gradual, and hence even believers must hope only for its gradual realization. In its relation to ex- ternal things, we find, however, a twofold modification of the idea in the New Testament. First, the sphere of life in which the Christian element prevails that is, the church is conceived in its visible form as an external communion. In this respect the king- dom of God itself is progressive expanding gradually in this sinful world still mixed, to a certain extent, with sinful elements. (See note on Matth. xiii. 47, ff.) For it was only in the person of the Saviour that the Paotkeia, kingdom, was exhibited as at once outward- ly and inwardly complete. But further, its external condition also is conceived as made to harmonize with the internal, and as corre- spondingly penetrated by the sovereign will of God ; and in this view the kingdom appears absolutely complete, but future. That which was first to sway the souls of men, presents itself in the end as ruling likewise in the creation. (Rom. viii. 19, ff.) In this respect the (3aoiheia might be called emyetog earthly (in contrast with irrov- pdviog, 2 Tim. iv. 18) ; but for wise reasons this epithet is not ap- plied to it ; the idea itself, however, is everywhere to be met with in the New Testament, in the promise, that at the coming of Christ the kingdom of God will become externally prevalent (see note on Matt. xx. 21 ; xxvi. 29 ; Luke xxi. 31 ; John xviii. 36.) In very many passages, however, its internal and external aspects are not strictly separated, but are blended with greater generality and in- definiteness, as in the Old Testament. The kingdom is then the ideal future world (see Luke xxiii. 42, the words of the thief), which, as being present in the souls of believers, but absent in its com- MATTHEW III. 2. 263 pleteness, may be spoken of as at once near and distant. There is another division in the idea of the kingdom of God in the New Tes- tament, which is equally unknown to the Old viz., its relation sometimes to the individual, at others to the human race collect- ively. According to these different relations, again, the kingdom is represented sometimes as already come, at others, as to come. For in so far as that spiritual element, which in Christ diffuses itself through mankind, and establishes among them the kingdom of God, has taken possession of an individual, to him the kingdom of God is present, and he is in that kingdom ; yet even for him it is still to come, not merely in so far as the higher principle of life ob- tains but a gradual control over his faculties, but also in so far as it is destined to quicken the entire race, and to meet his view as mani- fested among them. The relation of the whole human race viewed as an individual is similar ; for though the kingdom of God (in the church) exists in the race, and the race (in believers as its represent- atives) in the kingdom of God, yet, on the other hand, the king- dom is still to come with respect to the race also. Thus the one idea of the kingdom of God appears in the New Testament alone, applied to different relations ; and from the various contrasts in which it is placed, sometimes one of these relations is more prominent, sometimes another. Among the great mass of the Jews held captive by the Pharisaical spirit, the idea of an external manifestation of the Messiah's kingdom prevailed. In opposition to this material view, the Saviour put forward its ideal character. Even in the apostolic times sprung up the germs of the Gnostic idealism, which in its doctrine of the QaoiXda, denied any future real and out- ward manifestation of the divine dominion. This point had therefore to be defended in opposition to that heresy. On the other hand, the Alexandrine school had, at a later period, to oppose the ideal aspect of the kingdom of God to the rude millennarian views of the ancient church ; and through its influence the view was again gradually forced into the back-ground that it is in the nature of the divine to pursue its subduing and ruling course from within to without from the individual to the universal. The pure realism of the Bible points out the medium between the two false paths of materialism and spiritualism in the doctrine of the fiamteia. It is not from this world, but yet in the world (John xviii. 36) ; and as, in the indi- vidual, its renovating process is from the inmost fountain of life, on which it first seizes, to the purifying and glorification of the body ; so it proceeds gradually from the individuals, who at first represent the kingdom of God, to the whole, raises the earth to paradisaic purity, and finally perfects the universe, as a new heaven and a new earth. (2 Pet. iii. 13 ; Kev. xxi. 1.) If now, in conclusion, we cast a glance on the passage under 264 MATTHEW III. 2, 3. consideration (Matth. iii. 2), and ask, in what sense John the Bap- tist may have understood the " kingdom," it is most probable, that, in his relation to the law, he conceived of it with the generality and indeterminateness of the Old Testament, but without incorporating with the idea any thing false. We may concede a certain affinity between John's notions of the Messiah's kingdom, and those that prevailed among the people. Their belief in its appearance as an external one, was not in itself false ; for that is in fact its consum- mation. Their error consisted in desiring its external, without its internal and more essential features. Thus, as the carnal man makes his God for himself, so he makes his kingdom of God for himself. The spiritual man has a spiritual God, and a spiritual kingdom of God ; but as the true God became man, so the kingdom of God, or of heaven, comes down to earth, that heaven and earth may celebrate a perfect reconciliation. Ver. 3. The Evangelists establish the divinity of the Baptist's mission by passages from the Old Testament. All four Evange- lists (see John i. 23) quote the passage Isa. xl. 3-5. Luke gives it most fully. In common with the other two, he follows the LXX. with slight variations. Mark introduces Mai. iii. 1 before it.* This passage, however, appears to have first occurred to him as parallel, while in the act of writing ; for, on the one hand, he cites it (from memory) with great variations, from the LXX., and, on the other, he has also applied the formula, KV 'Roala ro5 Trpo0?/r^ to the passage from Malachi. The transcribers have indeed given iv rolg ^po^-aig, in the prophets, as a correction ; but that this reading is without value needs no proof. This passage of Mark is perhaps an unequivo- cal sign that he had documents before him, and made use of them: He took the formula of quotation from Matthew and Luke, but in- serted from memory the words of Malachi, without changing the formula, f The whole prophetic passage is founded on the figure of the triumphal entry of a king, for whom the road is leveled. Since the king and his kingdom, are alike spiritual, the heights and depths are also to be taken spiritually, and are to be understood of those mental states of unbelief and despair, of pride and self-sufficiency, which stand in the way of the Saviour's work. Quvrj, voice, forms an interesting contrast with Aoyo? (John i. 1.) In the notion of " word," the idea is likewise included, which is conveyed by the articulate word. The " voice," as such, denotes simply that which * On the passage, Mai. iii. 1, see further the observations on Matth. xi. 10 ; Luke viL 27, where the same quotation is adduced with similar variations, evidently indicating the use of the same sources of information. f Hengstenberg's supposition, in his Christology, vol. iii., p. 398, ff., 464, ff.. that Mark quoted the passage out of Malachi as belonging to Isaiah, because the former bor- rowed it from the latter, and Malachi is therefore; only the auctor secundarius. appears to me to be forced. They are still the words of MalachL MATTHEW III. 3-7. 265 awakens, excites. John introduced no new idea among mankind. He claimed supremacy over no peculiar department of life, to which he could have introduced men. He was a mere organ for a powerful spiritual influence in the spiritual waste of humanity. He awakened the sense of need, which the Redeemer satisfied. (QdpayZ, in Luke iii. 5, 6, = rdfipog, (?) hollow place, valley. This is the only place where it is found in the New Testament. The op- posites to it are ftowog and opo$ . The first of these words, (3ovv6g, is found only in Luke xxiii. 30. The LXX. use it for swaa, elevation, hill. On ouTijpiov rov Qeov, see Luke ii. 30 ; Acts xxviii. 28 : ouTipia is used in the same way, Luke i. 69. In the concluding formula, fyerai -naaa odpt; K. r. A., the Evangelist follows the LXX., contrary to the Hebrew text, where the words ourrjpiov r. 6. are wanting. On the other hand, the words 6d %ei fivva/iiv rtva, fie%ptf uv iWijv 'H/ltaf xpioi) aiirbv KOI fyavepov Tract nonjay. Though the Messiah has been born and lives, he is unknown, and does not even know himself, nor lias 272 MATTHEW III. 13-17. Ver. 13. According to Mark's account (i. 9), our Saviour ap- pears to have continued at Nazareth till the time of his public ap- pearance. The inner life in him was, doubtless, silently and secretly unfolding itself. But when the hour was come, which the Spirit within gave him to know with indubitable certainty,* he came to John at the Jordan (on the locality, see note on John i. 28, 29), in order to be introduced by this messenger of God. Ver. 14, 15. The important conversation between Jesus and John, before the baptism, is narrated by Matthew only. It is of the highest importance for an understanding of John's relation to the Saviour ; and Matthew gives, even in this communication, a proof of the importance and originality of his peculiar sources of informa- tion, particularly in the discourses. Ver. 16, 17. The process of John's baptism of Christ is not mi- nutely detailed ; whether the Baptist uttered any words, or what words, over Jesus, is left unnoticed. We are told only what took place after the baptism was over that is, at the emersion out of the water (av^i) d-rrb rov vdaroq). That the outpouring of the Spirit did not take place before the submersion, perfectly accords with the sym- bolical character of the action (see Eom. vi. 1, ff.), which is not indeed in itself applicable to John's baptism, but which the Saviour, by his baptism, typically imparted to the action. The one part of the action the submersion represents its negative aspect viz., the taking away of the old man (Bom. vi. 4); the other the emersion denotes its positive aspect viz., the appearance of the new man ; the com- munication of the Holy Ghost would therefore be naturally con- nected with the latter. Luke adds (iii. 21), that Jesus prayed, which must be understood of being absorbed in inward devotion. After the emersion, these three circumstances constitute the progress of the action the opening of the heavens, the descent of the Spirit, the utterance of the voice. But that all this did not pass as a spec- tacle before the assembled multitude, but was seen by Christ and John alone, is clearly implied in Matth. iii. 16 (dvew^fyaav avr& ol ovpavoi), and in John i. 32. Spiritual eyes are needful for the con- templation of spiritual transactions ; he only who possessed such, was in a condition to behold the working of the Spirit. A vague and undefined emotion, awakened by the mighty working of the any power, until Elias shad come and anoint him and make him known to all. (See note on Matth. xvii. 10, ff.) At the close of Christ's ministry (see note on John xii. 28), a similar public approval of him. took place by a voice from heaven ; so that the same event forms alike the commencement and the close of his public life. * It is quite an erroneous notion, that Jesus made his public appearance in conse- quence of an exactly calculated and carefully formed plan. His inward life obeyed only the direction of his heavenly Father ; what he saw him do, that the Son also did. There was, indeed, at the same time ; the clearest consciousness of what he did; but all calcula- tion and human forming of plans must be conceived as excluded, because it trenches upon Christ's direct oneness of life with God. MATTHEW III. 16, 17. 273 Spirit, may have pervaded the multitude at the sublime instant, when the glory of heaven descended to earth ; but the transaction itself was not seen by them. (Compare the analogous case in the conversion of the Apostle Paul, Acts ix. 7.) If we thus transfer the occurrence to the domain of the Spirit, we need not have re- course either to the historical interpretation (which speaks of Jewish notions of a brazen vault of heaven, and birds accidentally directing their flight to the place of baptism), or to its mythical explanation. The Spirit the invisible cause of all that is visible contains in himself the ground of all things ; the revelation and bestowment of himself is a quality of his nature. The opening of heaven the region of the Spirit is, consequently, nothing but the revealing of the world of spirits to the spirit. Every revelation is a rending of the heavens a descent of the Spirit. (Isa. Ixiv. 1 ; Ezek. i. 1 :) Acts vii. 55.) Far as we ought to be from viewing the opening of the heavens materially, we should be just as far from con- sidering it imaginary ; it is a real operation of the Spirit for the spirit. For the Saviour, this opening of heaven was an abiding one ; the flow of his inner life towards the eternal home of the Spirit, and the stream thence down to him, never again ceased. Gradually during their intercourse with our Lord, the disciples had their spiritual eye opened to this relation, as they saw continu- ally heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man. (John i. 52.) The descent of the Spirit is therefore nothing but his bestowment, which is his very nature. As love, God descends, in his Spirit, into the hearts of his people. So also the sound of the voice is a necessary operation of the Spirit. The Spirit the author of language speaks for the spirit ; his opera- tion is nothing but word. What he speaks the spirit understands immediately ; not by the intervention of the physical ear, but by the spiritual ear that is by spiritual susceptibility of spiritual operations.* With regard to the comparison of the Holy Ghost to a dove, the word &aei, as if, as, used by all the four Evangelists, shews that it was meant to be regarded only as a comparison. The reality of the appearance is, indeed, expressly signified (aufiariKu eiSei, Luke iii. 22) ; but, as a real spiritual phenomenon, it was not visible to physical eyes, and, consequently, the impression could only be de- scribed by a comparison with visible things. According to the symbolism of the Bible, certain mental characters appear expressed * It is not intended by these remarks to assert, that, in the whole transaction there was not also something visible and audible to all. The Gospel according to the Hebrews (see the author's History of the Gospels, p. 81) mentioned an additional circumstance viz., the visible appearance of fire at the baptism. As all revelations of the divine take place with light and splendour, the idea is not incorrect ; only, it is viewed materially. Just so with the voice (see John xii. 29), there may have been something audible & VOL. I. 18 274 MATTHEW III. 16, IT. in several animals, as in the lion, the lamb, the eagle, and the ox. In this system of natural hieroglyphics, the dove denotes purity and simplicity, and hence the spirit of purity may be most fittingly compared with the dove. The coming of the Spirit like a dove denotes, consequently, that the fulness of the spirit of purity was imparted to Jesus, whereby he became the purifier of mankind. He was therefore sealed, so to speak, as the Son of God ; on which account the declaration of the voice from heaven is, Tliis is my beloved Son, etc. That the term Son of God refers here to the divine eternal nature of the Son, is shewn by John i. 34. In the baptism of the Spirit, the Saviour himself was consciously perfected in that nature, and manifested first of all to John. ('A-yam/ro^ = T^. ~EvfioKeiv KV rivt, = s n*n. Nothing but his own image is well-pleasing to God, and, consequently, only those who are in Christ, Ephes. i. 6.) There are two other points in the account of the baptism mentioned exclusively by the Evangelist John (i. 32.) First, the words j Trvevpa speive erf avrov i. e. } ffWev err' avrov KCU e/wrtve, the Spirit remained upon him i. e., came upon him and remained. In these words the Evangelist notices, in the Saviour's case, what he usually insists upon as the peculiar aspect of the Spirit's opera- tions under the New Testament. While in the Old Testament mode of his operation he reveals himself at particular moments, he appears in the New, as permanently and uniformly efficient. In the life of Jesus we find this uniformity of divine consciousness perfectly exhibited ; while, in the developments of life in Old Tes- tament saints, there was an alternation of elevated, and, as it were, spiritless seasons. Secondly, the words : OVK yfeiv avrov, I knew him not (John i. 33), are remarkable. They appear at variance, partly, with the passage Matth. iii. 14, which supposes an acquaintance between Jesus and John ; and, partly, with their family relations, it being scarcely possible, while the mothers were so intimate, that the sons should be unknown to each other. But qdeiv, knew, evi- dently does not stand opposed to the supposition that John knew Jesus externally, and cherished anticipations of his exalted destina- tion. But to gain divine indubitable certainty, that it was in the person of Jesus that the hopes of mankind were to be fulfilled, re- quired express confirmations, such as to transcend all subjective impressions, and the deceptions to which they are liable. Such a miraculous sign was appointed him in the outpouring of the Spirit, and this sign he had at the baptism. (John i. 33.)f * The comparison of the Spirit with the dove is found iu the Samaritan and Rabbini- cal writers also. In the tract Chagigah, it is said on Gen. i. 2 ; "Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aqua, ut columba," The Spirit of God hovered over the water, like a dove. The Christian sects probably derived the comparison from the New Testament. f As John grew up in the wilderness, and Jesus in Galilee, they may not have been personally acquainted. A sign had been promised to John by which he should recognize MATTHEW III. 16, 17 ; IV. 1. 275 Luke (iii. 23) connects with his account of the baptism, the genealogy, in which, agreeably to the popular notion (&v &$ tvofii&ro), he commences with Joseph, Mary's husband. With this transition, Luke connects the important observation, that Jesus was thirty years old at the beginning of his ministry, 'ttoei, about, being added, seems indeed to make the date uncertain ; but as the age of the Levites' entrance on office was fixed by Numb. iv. 3, 47, at thirty years, and as the Saviour invariably adhered to the existing ordinances of the Old Testament, we may conclude with probability that the Saviour was not less than thirty years of age. Yet there is no reason to suppose that he exceeded the fixed number ; in the Saviour's life all is disposed according to number and measure, and it is therefore best to adhere to the age assigned. The only remain- ing uncertainty is, whether his public appearance falls at the beginning or the end of the year. (In the construction of the sen- tence, supply the verb diddoKeiv with dp%6fievog. It is not conform- able to the connexion to construe the participle with i]v, or &v with 3. CHKIST'S TEMPTATION. (Matth. iv. 1-11; Marki. 11, 12; Luke iv. 1-13.) THE Saviour's endowment with the fulness of the Spirit is most appropriately followed by his steadfastness in the contest with the evil one. It is part of the idea of the Messiah, that he is appointed to destroy the kingdom of darkness ; his whole life on earth, there- fore, appears as a conflict with its prince. The Gospel-history, however, particularizes two periods in the life of Jesus, in which he opposed the full and united power of the evil one, and overcame. These periods form the commencement and the close of his public labours, and each possesses its peculiar character. In the first temp- tation, at the commencement of his ministry,* temptation ap- proached the Saviour by the avenue of desire; in the other, at the close of his earthly labours, by that of the fear of suffering and death. Every temptation appears in tUe one or the other of these forms ; by the conquest of both alike, our Lord stands as the ideal of perfect righteousness as victor in the war with sin. The narra- tive before us of the temptation of Jesus through the medium of the Messiah (John i. 33.) But when Jesus came to him (Matth. iii. 14) before the sign, the impression of his majestic appearance, and an inward voice alike said to him, " This is he !" And then came the sign as a sealing witness from heaven. [E. * Even in Jewish theology the conception had been formed from the general idea of the Messiah, that he would have to be tempted by Satan just at the commencement of his office. See ScMttgen, Jesus der wahre Messias; aus der judische Theologie dargesteUt. Leipzig, 1748. Svo. S. 754, ff. 276 MATTHEW IV. 1. desire, makes it approach the Saviour in the three principal forms by which the world uniformly works viz., the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. (1 John ii. 16.) This narra- tive, consequently, exhibits the comprehensiveness and sufficiency of his victory over sin, and thus forms a suitable introduction to the description of the labours of the Saviour, who was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Heb. iv. 15.) The same temptations of pleasure, which on this occasion met Jesus concen- trated, and were in this form repelled by him, followed him indi- vidually through his whole earthly ministry, assuming various forms at various times. In like manner, temptations on the side of pain presented themselves to the Saviour through his whole earthly life, till, at its close, they assailed him in their full concentration. Our conception of the evangelical narrative of the temptation of Christ is necessarily qualified by our views regarding the doctrine of the devil, and of bad angels in general. Keserving fuller explana- tions on this point for the note on Matth. viii. 28, we simply remark, that only the most arbitrary exegesis can deny the existence of evil spirits. Even the Old Testament teaches, though for wise reasons obscurely, that man did not produce evil from himself, but was ex- posed to its influence by the seductions of a wicked power, a doc- trine essential to the very idea of redemption, which supposes a bondage under a foreign force. (See Gen. iii. 1 ; Lev. xv. 8 ; Deut. xxxii. 17 ; Psalm cvi. 37 ; Job i. 6 ; Isa. liv. 16 ; Zech. iii. 1.) In the New Testament, Christ confirms this doctrine, partly by uni- versally taking it for granted, as appears times without number in his discourses, that there is a kingdom of evil in opposition to the kingdom of good (see Matth. xii. 26, ff.), and partly by express asser- tions respecting it (Matth. xiii. 39 ; John viii. 44 ; xiv. 30), which admit no other unprejudiced exposition. The expositor, then, who feels himself compelled to include the existence of the devil among the doctrines taught by Christ and the apostles, will be unable to sanction explanations of the temptation, which understand the term AidftoXog, devil, in Matthew and Luke (for which Mark has aaravajf) of some kind of human enemies or tempters, as, in the idea of Christ, the idea of his contest with evil in its centralized form is necessarily included. The whole doctrine of the Bible concerning Christ's relation to the kingdom of evil, even though we did not possess the narrative of the temptation, would lead to the same idea which is there involved. But if these explanations are inadmissible, incomparably more so are those which regard the temptations here recorded as arising from within the Saviour. Schleiermacher is not wrong in saying : " If Jesus ever harboured any such thoughts (as the tempter suggested to him), even in the most evanescent man- ner, he would no longer be Christ ; and this explanation appears to MATTHEW IV. 1. 277 me the worst neological outrage that has been committed against him." ( Versuch uber den Lucas, S. 54.) The absolute purity of Jesus admits in no way of an impure thought coming from himself ; as the first Adam, according to the profound narrative in Genesis, was tempted from without, so was the second Adam also (1 Cor. xv. 47), only with this difference, that the latter came off victorious.* Schleiermacher' s own view, however, that the tempta- tion is merely a parabolical narrative, which was afterwards mis- understood which view Ullmann also (Studien, H. 1, S. 59, ff.) approves is sufficiently refuted by Usteri (Studien 1832, H. 4). Undoubtedly we possess here a pure fact, undistorted by mythical ele- ments (Blatter fur hohere Wahrheit, B. v., S. 247, ff.) : yet still sven from the strictly biblical point of view it may be doubted, whether we are to conceive of an external appearance of Satan standing, as it were corporeally, before Christ. This may be denied for various reasons. In the first place, we can point to no analogous fact either in the Old Testament or the New ;f for the narrative in Gen. iii. 1, take it as we may, cannot, at least, be called an appearance of the devil. Nor would the fact be explained even by assuming an outward appearance of the prince of darkness ; for, assuming that Jesus was physically transported through the air, it would still be inconceiv- able how all the kingdoms of the world could be surveyed from a mountain .J Besides, the words which the tempter uttered out- wardly, must be conceived to have been united with an inward in- fluence, because, without this there would have been no temptation ; this would, therefore, be the essential point, even on the supposition of an outward appearance. It is, therefore, doubtless most fitting to lay the scene of the occurrence, as an internal one, in the sphere of the soul ; we thus obtain a true conception of it, and pre- serve all its essential features. The temptation consisted in this, that the soul of Jesus was exposed to the full influence of the king- dom of darkness. This kingdom in the person of its representative, first displayed to the Saviour its bright side, and endeavoured to seduce him from the narrow path marked out for him on earth. * The hypothesis started by Meyer (in Uttmann&nd Umbreifs Studien, 1831, H. 2), does not differ essentially from this view. He supposes that the temptation was a dream, and compares with it Solomon's dream, 1 Kings iii. 5, f For if those seductive thoughts could have arisen in Christ's heart, though only in a dream, his purity would have been sullied. But if any one chose to refer the excitement of the thoughts in a dream to a hostile power, the opinion would not indeed be offensive ; but then there appears no reason why the whole occurrence should not have taken place in a waking state, as the narrative implies. f But there was no moment analogous to this, no man analogous to Christ. The tempter could not appear under a mask to our Lord as to Adam. (Comp. my Krit. d. Ev. Gerch. 53. [E. | Yet, on the other hand, we can scarcely conceive of a real temptation to the Saviour to display himself by throwing himself down before a multitude that existed only in vision. So also tke first temptation attaches itself to a real, physical hunger. [E. 278 MATTHEW IV. 1. We meet with analogous appearances in the Old Testament as well as the New. (See Ezek. viii. 3 ; xi. J. ; Rev. i. 10 ; xvii. 3.) And if we are disposed to connect, 2 Cor. xi. 14, " Satan is trans- formed into an angel of light," with the temptation, that expression by no means requires us to imagine an outward appearance : it can be understood of an inward revelation of Satan, as a good angel, the more surely to deceive. Matth. iv. 1. Immediately after the baptism, the Saviour left the Jordan (see Luke iv. 1), and withdrew into solitude, to prepare in quiet for his lofty calling. That a literal wilderness is here meant, is seen by Mark i. 13. Tradition refers it to Quarantaria, which lies near Jericho. (Joseph. Antiq., xvi. 1. Bell. Jud., iv. 82.) Inas- much as this quiet preparation, and the temptation connected with it, was based on God's plan itself, it is said : he was led up by the Spirit, etc. (dvrj%d7) VTTO -rrvEvfrnro^ elg TT/V epr]^m>.) That this Spirit was that good spirit who filled Jesus at the baptism, is seen from Luke iv. 1, in the words : 'Irjaovg -rrvKv/naro^ dyiov Trhrjpqg K. r. A. But in that case it seems inexplicable how we can speak of the Saviour who was armed with the fulness of the Spirit, as being tempted (Treipaodrjvai). (The meaning of the word is always one and the same ; it is modified only according to the object or subject of temp- tation. Used of the evil one, it denotes to try, for the purpose of destroying. In this sense it is said of God, -neipd^ei ovdeva, he tempt- eth no one, James i. 13. God, on the contrary, tempts in order to purify and to perfect, Gen. xxii. 1. Used of men in reference to God, it is always the product of unbelief and presumption, since it involves the contrary of humble waiting for indications from God, Heb. iii. 9.) But we must include the possibility of a fall (like Adam's posse non peccare) in the very idea of a Saviour ; because, without this, no merit is conceivable.* True, this possibility must be viewed as purely objective ; since in so far as God became man in the person of Christ, so far we must ascribe to him the impossi- bility of sinning (non posse peccare). This blending of the possi- bility of falling with the necessity of a victory over evil, is a mystery, which is one with the idea of the God-man itself. It is only by dis- tinguishing between ^v^, soul, and' Trvevfw, spirit, that we can at- tain to a clear idea of the relation. His liability to temptation was attached to his human soul ; the necessity of a victory, to the ful- ness of the spirit. By the former, he is made like us, and set for a pattern ; by the latter, he is above all that is human, and assists individuals to become like himself, by the power of the same Spirit. In his last great temptation, that, viz., of his final sufferings, the * The consolation, too. that is afforded to unhappy man, struggling against sin, in the fact that the Saviour himself tasted the bitterness of that struggle in all its forms (Heb. ii. 17, 18), would be destroyed, if the objective possibility of Christ's falling were denied. MATTHEW IY. 1. 279 Saviour himself announced his being deserted of the fulness of the divine Spirit (Matth. xxvii. 46) ; this abandonment, in which the humanity of the Saviour stood as it were isolated, affords a view of the nature of his conflict at that time. In the present case nothing is expressly said of such a desertion ; but it must be presumed, par- ticularly as the Saviour does not at once recognize the tempter. The outward fasting' in the wilderness was an emblem, as it were, of his inward forsaken condition ; and it is only by this assumption, that the temptation acquires essential significancy. In full possession of the divine Spirit, temptation is inconceivable ; it is only as di- vested of that fulness that the soul of Jesus could humanly fight and struggle. According to this, the scene should be conceived in the following form : After the effusion of the Spirit on our Lord, he went, under the impulse of that Spirit, into the wilderness, in order to begin his great work in the seclusion of his inner life. There, as in the garden of G-ethsemane, and on Golgotha, the ful- ness of the Spirit was withdrawn from him, and he was left to the power of darkness (Luke xxii. 53) ; pleasure, in its most seductive forms, tempted his soul. But, in perfect innocence, the Saviour passed through the conflict ; and, when the temptation was repelled, the fulness of heavenly power returned to him (Matth. iv. 11). If it were said, that John i. 32 : nvevna K^sivev ITT' avrov, the Spirit abode upon Mm, is contradictory to this view, the same might be said of Matth, xxvii. 46, where such a state of spiritual desertion must certainly be supposed. By whatever method the difficulty is solved in that case, the same must be applied here. My idea of this obscure relation is this : In the Saviour there was an alternation of states ; he had seasons of the richest spiritual fulness, and of deser- tion ; but, in the first place, these states were not so variable as they are wont to be in sinful men ; and, next, they did not penetrate to the inmost sanctuary of his being. His soul itself was holy and pure ; and, from its being most intimately pervaded by the Spirit, was so entirely a spiritual soul (ipv^rj TrvevfiariK^J, that even at the moments of complete desertion by the overflowing fulness of the Spirit (as we must suppose in Matth. xxvii. 46), his soul acted in the might of the divine Spirit. This unalterable repose in the depths of his holy soul this perfect freedom, in the inmost seat of life, from those agitations of disquietude, which the Eedeemer bore for our good, as he did all the other consequences of sin are denoted by the " abiding of the Spirit," which is contrasted with the alter- nating conditions of Old Testament saints, who might be immedi- ately overpowered by sin whenever dark hours arrived.* 6 There seems no difficulty in reconciling John's statement of the Spirit's remaining upon the Saviour, with his subsequent withdrawal. His descending and remaining, '. e., not immediately withdrawing, is in no way inconsistent with his leaving Christ afterwards for special reasons. [K. 280 MATTHEW IV. 2-4. Ver. 2. In Christ's fasting for forty days, there is evidently a parallel with the fasting of Moses (Deut. ix. 9, 18) and Elijah (1 Kings xix. 8). We are, therefore, the less justified in taking vqoTeveiv, fasting, in a wider sense viz., "abstaining from ordinary nourishment," since it is said of Moses, that he ate no bread, and drank no water, which coincides with Luke iv. 2 : " He did eat no- thing." The intention of the Evangelists is to place Jesus in com- parison with the great prophets of earlier days (according to Deut. xviii. 15: "A prophet like unto me," says Moses, "will the Lord thy God raise up") ; he could not, therefore, do any thing less than they did. The number forty was certainly a sacred number with the Jews ; but it does not follow thence that it is not to be taken exactly ; but rather that the idea entertained by the Jews of the sacredness of certain numbers has itself a deeper foundation, which, taken as a general proposition, may be thus expressed : "According to divine arrangement, which is pure harmony, every development proceeds by definite measure and number." The forty days of the temptation forms an interesting parallel with Israel's forty years' journey through the wilderness.* All the passages quoted in the history of Christ's temptation are taken from the narrative of that journey. Ver. 3, 4. The point of the first temptation is justly regarded as lying in the thought of employing the higher powers bestowed upon him for satisfying his own wants. The principle here main- tained, of using his miraculous powers only for the good of others, the Saviour followed out with self-denying love through his whole ministry. Jesus repulsed the powerful solicitation of sensual appetite by faith in God's power, with a reference to Deut. viii. 3, where the LXX. translate HIST? *s xs'm Vs by pr/f^a iKTropevopevov 6ia oro^aro^ Qeov. In this passage the manna, viewed as an extraordinary heavenly aliment (Psalm Ixxviii. 25), is contrasted with earthly means of subsistence, and just so Jesus contrasts the earthly apro$, bread, with the heavenly. According to the connexion, therefore, other kinds of earthly food cannot be meant. The pfjfj-a Qeov, word of God, is to be conceived of here as the effectual creative cause of all nourishment. As every thing was made by God's word, and by the breath of his mouth (Psalm xxxiii. 6), so that same word also preserves all things, since the preservation is but a continued crea- tion. Jesus is stayed by faith in this power of God ; so long as the Spirit did not release him from the wilderness, he was fed by the * Such parallels are acknowledged by the advocates of the mythical character of the Gospel-history, Straws and De Wette; but in such a way, that precisely because of those parallels they deny the historical reality, both of the typical event in the Old Testament, and of the antitype in the New. But in this way they are degraded into mere puerilities. For a serious person they can have no import, unless they be founded on real transactions, by which God speaks to men in the language of fact. MATTHEW IV. 4-7. 281 hidden word of God, which strengthened soul and body, without his providing any thing for himself by the miraculous gift granted to him. (On pru-ia Qeov, see note on Matth. iii. 2.) Ver. 5. Luke has placed the second temptation last ; evidently with less propriety.* The first two thoughts the tempter suggests to Jesus we can, for a moment, imagine as coming from a good be- ing ; the temptation is more hidden, and Satan, consequently, does not display himself as he is ; but in the last requirement his dark origin is openly revealed, so that it is properly followed in Matthew's account by vnaye, be gone. (' Kyia whig = fc-ftrj "py, holy city, a de- signation of Jerusalem as the centre of the Old Testament theocracy. Hrepvyiov = d;s, a wing of the temple, in the shape of a tower, with a flat roof. The conducting him thither took place KV -rrvevnari, in Spirit, Rev. xvii. 3.) Ver. 6. The point of the second temptation lies in the thought of parading the gift of working miracles, and thus attaching to him- self the unreasoning multitude ; this thought, being clothed in the words of Scripture,f is suggested to our Lord in a delusive form. In this respect Jesus acted constantly on the principle here ap- proved his miracles always had reference to moral and spiritual ends. The quoting of the Scripture words was intended to excite his vanity from the consciousness of his being the Son of God, through the pleasure inspired by the miraculous powers residing in him. Humble obedience, the laying aside of one's own will, can alone secure the victory in such a case. The passage is quoted from Psalm xci. 11, according to the LXX., but in an abbreviated form. In the context, the words apply to all the pious, and represent them as under God's protection. But the pious part of mankind, con- ceived as a whole, has its representative in the Messiah as the second Adam ; and therefore it is quite right to refer the passage to the Messiah ; the error lies only in its application to cases of our own making. The angels appear here as " ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation." (See note on Heb. i. 14.) The entire fulness of the heavenly powers is present for those that fear God, as Paul says, " All things are yours." (1 Cor. iii. 21, 22.) Ver. 7. Jesus meets the tempter, who plants himself on the temple, and makes free use of the word of God, with that same Word. His language expresses (Deut. vi. 16) this thought, that the perverse application of a correct principle is a tempting of God. The words are quoted according to the LXX. ('Eicneipd&iv is used * [See Greswelff Dissertations on the Gospels, vol. ii., p. 192, ffi , second edition.] Tr. f Concerning the use of the words of Scripture on the part of angels, see remarks on Luke i. 17. 282 MATTHEW IV. 7-9. in Luke x. 25 ; 1 Cor. x. 9, in a bad sense only ; and not, therefore, of G-od's temptations.) Ver. 8, 9. This passage, as already observed, goes specially to prove that the temptation is to be conceived as internal. A view of all the kingdoms of the world is of course impossible from any physical elevation ; even on the hypothesis of physical changes of place, we must still have recourse to a spiritual ecstacy.* But in his holy humility and self abasement, he chose the cross instead of the crown. But that the reference is not to a dominion over the Jews merely, but to universal monarchy, is evident even from the Jewish notion of a Messiah, which maintained it to be one of his prerogatives to rule over all nations. (See JBertholdt, Christol. jud., p. 188.) The idea, rightly conceived, is also perfectly correct and true. This last temptation seems to turn on the proud lust of do- minion. Satan here manifests himself as the " prince of this world" (John xii. 31 ; xiv. 30 ; xvi. 11), and as desirous of making Jesus his instrument (that is, of making Christ Antichrist), since he aims to delude him by the promise of dominion over the world, and by the revelation of its glory, while at the same time he possesses the power of arraying its entire forces against Jesus, in case he resists his seductions. As payment, the tempter demands worship from him. (HpooKvveiv, as an outward rite, such as kneeling or prostra- tion, is here merely a symbolical expression of the inward act, at which the temptation was aimed i. e., acquiescing in Satan's will, permitting him to rule in the soul, and submitting to become his instrument.) It was precisely this which disclosed to the Saviour the dark nature of the being that suggested to him the thoughts which he repelled ; and Jesus, therefore, bids the creature of the night depart, with the word vna-ye, be gone. Luke's narrative contains some peculiar traits. On occasion of the view of the king- doms of the earth from the mountain, he adds : v ariynq %povov, in a moment of time (= iv pt-ny bfydatyav, 1 Cor. xv. 52), which is still more in favour of the interpretation of this scene as a spiritual vision [but which admits a simple explanation from the superhuman power of Satan]. Luke next adds in his account of this tempta- tion the following words to what the devil said : "for it has been de- livered to me, and to whomsoever I will I give it" (on ipol napadsdorcu, KOI oi tav 0e/lw, didufu avrf\v). HapadedoToi, it has been delivered, con- veys a hint worthy of notice, as opposing the doctrine of an original evil principle ; the prince of this world has received all from God, to whom alone, as the everlasting xav-oupdruQ, almighty, dominion is due. The confession of having received all, forms the strangest * According to our view, we avoid the question altogether whether the opof Mav was Tabor, or some other mountain a question we are utterly destitute of data for answering. MATTHEW IV. 9-11. 283' contrast with the demand of worship. What the tempter here says of himself, is true of the Saviour in the purest and deepest sense. (See John xvii. 22 ; Kev. xi. 15.) Ver. 10. In answer to this last temptation, the Saviour put forward the first commandment (Deut. vi. 13), which contains all the rest in itself. Only the One, the Eternal, the True God of heaven and of earth, ought to be the object of worship. Where the assumption of this divine prerogative shews itself, the spirit of the devil is displayed. (See 2 Thess. ii. 4.) Through this main- tenance of the honour of God, not only this world, but the other also, became the possession of Jesus ; to him all power in heaven and earth was given. (Aarpevu = i? is stronger than TrpooKvvelv; the latter is used also of subordination to man, the former refers only to God.) Ver. 11. The temptation of Jesus stands as one of those decisive events, such as are met with in a lower degree in common life also, and which determine the character of all its subsequent manifestations. As, after Adam's first transgression, all subsequent sin was nothing but the unfolding of original sin ; so this, the Saviour's first victory, appears as the foundation of all that follow. The Saviour here appears standing between the two worlds of light and darkness. As the hostile powers fled, heavenly powers sur- rounded him, and joined in celebrating the victory of good.* The Tempter wished Christ to serve him, instead of which the angels minister to Jesus, and announce that he is king of the kingdom of light. The circumstance mentioned in Mark i. 13 : " he was among the wild beasts" (fjv juera r&v drjpiuv), has also, as Usteri (ut. sup.) strikingly observes, a typical meaning, because it is meant to repre- sent Jesus as the restorer of Paradise. Adam fell in Paradise, and made it a wilderness ; Jesus conquered in the wilderness and made it a paradise, where the beasts lost their wildness, and angels took up their abode. But that the Redeemer's great conflict with the kingdom of darkness was not over for ever, is expressly noticed in Luke iv. 13, in the words : 6 &a/3o/loc dnKorr] dn' avrov d%pi icaipov, the devil departed from him for a season, which close the history of the temptation. If, according to the view given above, the temptation of Jesus took place in the depth of his inward life without witnesses, we must regard his own account of it as the only source of information, and testimony to its reality. This, and similar events, probably formed the subject of Jesus' discourses with his disciples after the resurrection, when he spoke to them of the things pertaining to the * After our Lord's second great temptation in Gethsemane, there appeared to him an angel to strengthen him. Luke xxii. 43. "We may suppose something of the same sort in this case. 284 MATTHEW IV. 11. kingdom of God. (Acts i. 3.) To become acquainted with the nature of that kingdom, it was needful that they should behold it in its establishment, and into that the temptation afforded the deepest insight. The accurate agreement in the narratives of Mat- thew and Luke, though writing quite independently of each other, both as to the event itself, and its place in the Gospel-history, is an ^eternal testimony to the vent not easily invalidated. It carries its internal testimony within itself, and in the close connexion in which it stands with the character and work of the Saviour. THIRD PART. OF CHRIST'S WORKS AND DISCOURSES PARTICULARLY IN GALILEE. MATTH. iv. 12 xviii. 35 ; MARK L 14 ix. 50 ; LUKE iv. 14 ix. 60. 1. JESUS APPEARS AS A TEACHER. (Matth. iv. 12-17 ; Mark i. 14, 15 ; Luke iv. 14, 15.) Ver. 12. Were we not accurately instructed by the accounts of the Evangelist John as to the many events which intervened be- tween the public appearance of Jesus and the imprisonment of John (see John iii. 24), we should conclude from Matth. iv. 12, and Mark i. 14, that the incarceration followed close upon the tempta- tion of Jesus. This fact confirms the view detailed above (Intro- duction, 7), that in this part of the Gospel-history, a chronologi- cal arrangement of the individual events is impracticable, since it is evidently by accident only that a comparison of John's narrative enables us to demonstrate, that the events thus connected hi the narrative are separated in point of time.* For even though Luke does not mention John in this place (see, however, Luke iii. 19, 20), yet he begins his narrative (iv. 15) with the general statement, that Jesus " taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all " by which this section is deprived of its chronological character. Matthew (iv. 23) applies similar general formulas, and thus likewise re- nounces beforehand all pretensions to an exact chronological arrange- ment of the several events. What portion of the accounts of the first three Evangelists caii with probability be assigned to the early period of Christ's public ministry, can be determined only by the help of the Gospel of John. The references to place are as indefi- * That this does not warrant any conclusion unfavorable to Matthew ao an author, is shewn by Sie/ert, ut. sup., S. 72. 286 MATTHEW IV. 12-16. nite as those to time ; particularly in Matthew. At the very beginning of this section (iv. 12) this Evangelist does indeed transfer the scene to Galilee and Capernaum ; but we cannot infer thence, that Mat- thew knew nothing of Christ's extending his labours beyond the limits of Galilee, till his last journey to Jerusalem ; for it cannot possibly be demonstrated where the separate events recorded by Matthew took place, since paying but slight regard to time and place, he arranges all according to certain general features.* Though it is probable, therefore, that as a Galilean, he narrates especially what took place in Galilee, yet his narrative assumes so general a form (see from ix. 35 onwards ; x. 1 ; xi. 1, 2, 7 ; xii. 19 ; xv. 22), that it may refer equally well to events in Judea and in Galilee. Ver. 13. After intimating, in general terms, that the Saviour selected Galilee as the chief scene of his ministry, Matthew in- forms us that not Nazareth, the dwelling-place of his parents, but Capernaum, became the centre of his labours. (Ktig and GKOTOS, see further in note on John i. 3, 4. ZKIO, Oavdrov, shadow of death, is after the Hebrew ny&x, which is commonly used as synonymous with ^n, darkness. The LXX. derived it from ^? and mtt.) ' T f Ver. 17. After this notice of the locality, Matthew mentions briefly the matter of the Saviour's preaching. He confines himself to the same points which he had spoken of in John's preaching (iii. 2) repentance, urged by the near approach of the kingdom of God. The Saviour's proclamation was at first naturally connected with that of John ; yet the remark in Mark. i. 15, is certainly not to be over- looked, that Triopi&tv, only a stronger expression.) But our Lord adds, as the peculiar feature of the persecution, which is endured because of the truth, that it is "vexev tyov, for my sake. By this weighty expression, the doctrine of Christian patience (closely allied to self-denial, which also is to be exercised only for the Lord's saJce), first attains its true significancy. (See note on Matth. x. 39.) Since Jesus is himself the truth and the righteousness, and that, too, manifested in a living person, pure suffering for what is good requires faith in him to bo exercised by the members of the kingdom of God. Where selfish- ness prevails, there cannot be such suffering as bestows happiness. But where such suffering is incurred for the faith's sake, and is borne in faith, it perfects the inward life, and awakens the de- sire for eternity. This latter point is very prominent in ver. 12, since we are there called upon even to rejoice in opposition to suf- ferings. ('Aya/l/Uaw, . exult = VA. It is a stronger term than %ai- peiv, rejoice. Luke vi. 23 uses oniprav, leap.} This joy, with respect to ourselves, does not exclude sorrow in reference to the persecu- tors. In the former respect, the suffering is only a testimony to the believer that he is God's. In the " woe" (vi. 26) Luke presents the other aspect. The exciting of human applause presupposes a worldly spirit. Where that is given, it is to be feared that the ap- plauded one belongs to the community of the wicked, and of the false teachers (i/>t><5o7r/9o0//Taj), just as the persecuted one is thereby numbered with the company of persecuted prophets. (The refer- ence to the prophets gives greater prominence to that aspect of the discourse, which shews it to have been addressed to the actual discir pies, ver. 1.) The mention of the 1*1066$, reward, ver. 12, appears remarkable, as it seems to reconduct to a legal point of view. In the kingdom of God, the motive for actions is not the reward in itself. The term was, perhaps, chosen with immediate reference to the position of the disciples, as Christ's earlier discourses do often still bear a legal colouring ; but there is, too, a reward for pure lovo a reward which is pure in proportion as the love itself is ; for the reward of love consists in being appreciated, and in moving in its own atmosphere. Ver. 13.- It has been already observed, in the general survey ol the connexion in the Sermon on the Mount, according to Matthew, them in this place is among the parts taken from later discourses. Yet they are found mentioned as early as Luke vi. 22. MATTHEW V. 1&-15. 301 that tho giving of a new (stricter) law is connected with the beati- tudes, in the course of the chapter, by the supposition of a power of the Holy Spirit being received in true repentance, which teaches us to observe such new commands. But the relation which the mention of the " salt of the earth" bears to what immediately pre- cedes, and to the whole, is obscure. The most natural connexion is undoubtedly the following : The idea of persecution presupposes a power of higher life in the persecuted disciples, by which sin feels itself aroused ; but this same power, which awakens enmity among the opponents of what is good, is the condition under which it works effectually in susceptible minds. It must, therefore, be pre- served and cherished notwithstanding persecutions. First of all Jesus calls the disciples aXag rfc y/fc, salt of the earth. (F/7, earth, is here = Koopog , tvorld, ver. 14, and denotes mankind generally with the additional notion of being corruptible, and requiring to be preserved by salt.) In the general system of natural symbols, which suggested itself in all profound research, salt always held an important place ; Pythagoras regarded it as the emblem of the <5iicaiov,just. Its use at sacrifices was also full of meaning. (Comp. Lev. ii. 13. This subject is more fully discussed in note on Mark ix. 50.) The point of comparison between the disciples and the salt lies in the power possessed by the latter of preventing corruption and imparting life.' :> The intimation that, without this power, the salt is wholly useless, was ^o excite the disciples to a careful preservation of the sacred power entrusted to them. (Instead of pupavOy, some Codd. read from papaiveadai, to waste azvay, which is less preferable. , used of salt, correponds to Vsn, [Job vi. 6], insipidus,fatuus.-\ Mark [ix. 50] uses avaAo^, saltless, insipid instead of it. Luke [xiv. 34] reminds us of the practice of applying salt as manure [tfoTrpitt] ; but savourless salt is useless even for that purpose noth- ing remains for it but the^tfw /3aAAv, the casting forth a figure of the spiritual destruction of backsliders. On the parallel passages, Mark ix. 50 ; Luke xiv. 34, 35 ; and for what follows, Mark iv. 21 ; Luke viii. 16, see those passages in their connexion.) Ver. 14, 15. The second comparison conveys the same general meaning. According to it the world appears as darkness (John i. 5), which the children of the kingdom are to illuminate. The disciples form the rays of him who is himself the light. (John i. 4 ; Phil. ii. 15.) In what follows, the circumstance is not specified, that the illuminating power may be lost, as was done with the salt ; there is only the exhortation to let the light shine. But, indirectly, this * De Wette compares 2 Kings ii. 20, according to which passage, Elisha heals water with salt. f Tho figure turns on the fact that salt produced by evaporation of sen-water, in hot countries, by long exposure to air and heat, loses its chloride of magnesia, anil Ls henconot strong enough to preserve meat. [E. 302 MATTHEW V. 15-17. exhortation involves the same warning which was given above ; for to him who covers his light, it is extinguished. To give vividness to his exhortation the Saviour makes use of two more comparisons. First, that of an elevated city, which strikes the eyes of all. Thus divine things have a loftiness in themselves, and, where they reveal themselves, they are seen, unless concealed for fear of persecution. Then comes the second comparison of a Av^vo^, lamp, the intention of which is to give light to those who are in the house ; this inten- tion ought not be frustrated. (In the parallel passages the same figure is employed, only that in Luke viii. 16, instead of f^odiog, first vnevos , and then K^IVIJ, are used. But in Luke xi. 33, we have KPVTCTTJ.) Ver. 16. An application of these comparisons is made ; from which it is evident, that light has reference not merely to doctrine and knowledge, but must be taken generally as the inward principle of life as the source of good works. (These are opposed not merely to evil works, but also to dead works, such as do not grow from the life of faith.) As a mark of the genuineness of the good works, it is noticed, that they must call forth praise, not for man, but for God ; it must be visible in them, that man is only the organ for the flowing forth of divine power from him to others. Ver. 17. The more undeniable it must have been to every one/ that in Christ appeared something entirely new ; and the more ex- pressly our Lord himself acknowledged this, and, in the sequel, contrasts himself as a new Lawgiver with the old lawgiver the more important was it to prevent the mistake of imagining, that the manifestation of what was new in him was detached from its historical foundation. Hence Christ here declares the intimate con- nexion between the Old and New Testament, in a manner which must have excluded all mistake on the point, if preconceived opinions on the subject had not been allowed to exercise an influence on the exposition. First of all, the Old Testament is described as inviolable in itself; then the New Testament is regarded as the completion of the Old ; and lastly, in this completion the law is declared to be of divine and eternal authority. The words : p) VOU'KJTJTE, think not, intimate a thought very likely to arise on the part of the disciples, that by the New, the Old Testament was abrogated. The Saviour distinctly excludes such an effect from the purpose of his mission (OVK rjWov.) (Nd^of Kai 7rpo07/T and i, are distinguished) .f More- over, as the first ewe v > until, fixes a limit to the universe, so the second does to the law itself. (In the phrase w? dv -ndvra yKVTjTdt, scil. rd iv rui vofu*) yeypaju/zeva, the yiveoQai is = Trkrjpovodai,. See Luke xxi. 32.) This thought involves no difficulty relatively to the typical character of the Old Testament. In the universality in which it is here laid down, it must, however, be applied to the law in all points. And yet it would seem that its moral features must be conceived as eternal, and, of course, can have no limit assigned to them. True ; but in the world of perfection the law will be done away, in so far as it will have become the inmost life of all beings ; there is no longer need of law, for every one himself ordains what is right. As, then, there is no law for God, so there is none for the perfected world ; for, like God, it also is law unto itself. Ver. 19. The following words point, perhaps, to some particular occurrences ; as some of the disciples, under a false conception of * The Apostle Paul explains himself in the same way, in regard to the relation of the Old Testament to the New, as the Epistle to the Galatians, in particular shews. In GaL ii. 18, the contrast of Karahveiv and oliiodoftelv is also found. It is only in appearance that such passages as Ephes. ii. 15, contain a different view of the law. f In like manner the Rabbins say : Si quis Daleth in Deut. vi. 4, mutant, concuteret totum mundum. It would change nns into nhN the true God into an idol. See Wet- stein on the passage. , 304 MATTHEW V. 19. 20. thoir freedom, may have assailed the edifice of the old theocracy. The passage has, at any rate, no reference to the Jewish doctors' division of the law into great and small commandments, since such a depreciation of the moral part (as the small commandments), and over-estimation of the ceremonial part (as the great commandments), being false pharisaical doctrine, necessarily excluded from the king- dom of heaven. But the expressions : " to be least in the kingdom of heaven," and "not to enter into the kingdom," cannot possibly be synonymous. Our Lord speaks rather in general of a state of mind, controlled mainly by Christian principle, but in which man proceeds without proper reverence for God's word, and teaches so to proceed, and does away with many apparently non-essential ordi- nances of the law. With a, false liberty like this, a man may indeed be of the kingdom of God in his inmost soul, but he does not belong to it with all his powers ; and for that reason, too, he is unfit to teach. The terms peyag, great, and t-Ao^tfTOf, least, denote, there- fore, different grades of development in the principle of the Christian life. The Scriptures often speak of different gradations like these, especially under the names of " children," " young men," and " men." (1 John ii. 13, 14 ; 1 Peter ii. 2 ; Ephes. iv. 13 ; Col. ii. 19.) The whole passage is, therefore, a warning to the disciples not to damage the cause of the kingdom of God and their own progress in it, by premature interference. Ver. 20. In what follows, Jesus contrasts with the arbitrary subversion of the Old Testament the equally arbitrary retention of it in its external form ; this was seen in the Pharisees, and totally excluded them from the kingdom. In itself, indeed, what belongs to the Old Testament can never be wwchristian ; it is only ^rechris- tian, and, as type, includes what is Christian. It may, however, be represented as unchristian and antichristian, If it is retained in its germ-like form, and its free development is impeded. Such was the position of the Pharisees ; they restricted the commandments of the Old Testament to their literal meaning, without penetrating to their spiritual contents. They had, therefore, a righteousness, but it was merely outward ; they seemed to keep the law, but this appearance was only a means for them the more certainly to break it in its most sacred forms. And as they had, too, the law written in their hearts (Rom. ii. 15), they desecrated God's sanctuary within them, * Tho Pharisaic mode of feeling (v. 20) is not contrasted (as Olshausen would have it) with the /.vstr, breaking of the law; but v. 20 rather attaches itself by the for (ydp) to v. 19 as an argument. Hence the Metv v. 19, must represent the Pharisaical mode of deal- ing with the law, and thus (unlike Kara Tivetv, v. 17) must denote the mechanical breaking up of a law into a multitude of casuistical and merely formal precepts in opposition to its spiritual apprehension and fulfilment. This subtle casuistry is in the kingdom of God valueless (shall be called least, etc., v. 19), and whoever reposes in it his hope of salvation excludes himself from the kingdom of God. [E. MATTHEW V. 20, 21. 305 and closed the kingdom of heaven against themselves by their right- eousness, which with them never led to poverty of spirit. How the righteousness of the subjects of the kingdom was to stand related to that of the Pharisees, forms the main thought in the grand com- parative view of Old and New Testament laws, to which the dis- course now passes ; only that Christ gives nothing new ;* he merely seizes the Old Testament in its deepest living root. The Pharisees, on the contrary, confound the form with the essence, and insist on the former instead of the latter. Yer. 21. First of all, the precept of the Mosaic law : ov Qovevoeis, thou slialt not kill, i. e., murder, is discussed. The words tppiBri rot? dpxaioig, it was said, etc., are evidently not meant of the contem- poraries of Moses merely, as if the meaning were, " the law was given to those of old."^ For the same law was given to the con- temporaries of Jesus, and to all times. This interpretation would also involve the inconsistency, that Jesus se himself and his doc- trine (eyw de /Uyw vfuv, ver. 22) in opposition to the Mosaic, which he had just (ver. 18) described as eternal, divine truth. For the same reasons, it is not admissible to supply %povoig with dp%aioig, in ancient times; the Saviour is not arguing against something anti- quated, but against the active errors of the present time. The words ppedri role; dp%aioig, must, therefore, be explained by the con- struction of the passive with the dative. On this construction, see Winer, Gr. of the New Testament, p. 172 (Amer. Tr.) ; and as to the Hebrew, Gesenius' Lehrgebaude, p. 821 so that the meaning is, " the ancients have said." ('Ap^atot = tp?j?t or &>?'?, like -npeo^vrepoi, denotes the Kabbinical and pharisaical representatives of the Old Testament theocracy.) Hence arises naturally the following con- nexion. To the external conception of the Mosaic commandments on the part of the Pharisees, our Lord opposes the inward one, and observes, that it is only this which introduces to the true, full mean- ing of the law. The whole argument against the Pharisees is, therefore, a defence of Moses, whose law assumed a form, indeed, corresponding to the immediate demands of the people, in their lower state of culture, but, at the same time, did not prevent, but promote the highest and purest development in spiritual life. But * See 1 John ii. 1, 8, where what is new in the Gospel is called the old which was from the beginning. f Tholuck has again defended this view, on the ground that in connexion with ^f>e6ij the dative must denote the person, and that dpx-n was formed and used among the inhabitants of Palestine as a gentle reproach = " stupid." Mwpof = Vas, is a stronger term of reproach, involving the added idea of abandoned, impious.) The parallel gradation in the punishment, Kpimg, awedpiov, ytevva -nv $6$, judgment, sanhedrim, gehenna, is further remarkable. These earthly punish- MATTHEW V. 22-26. 307 ments are not to be taken as designating divine punishment in its different degrees, as if Christ would oppose to the law of the letter a new law of the letter. He means only to set forth the general truth that sin in its slightest manifestation is worthy of death.* Still less does he intend to establish a human political law. The dpyi&adai, being angry, cannot in itself be a matter on tvhich a human tribunal would pass judgment ; for the reason, that the fact can never be proved. (Teevva = taisrr N-^ means, primarily, the Valley of Hinnom. [2 Kings xxiii. 10.] The prophets use mefo, Tophet, for it, which is from tpn, a place spit upon, Jer. vii. 31 ; xix. 6.) The place for bodily filth became the symbol of the spiritual slough, where all that is estranged from God is gathered together. On the relation of Gehenna to Hades, see note on Luke xvi. 23. Ver. 23, 24. From the negative view, the not admitting hatred and the spirit of murder into the soul, our Lord passes on to the positive one, and teaches that the believer should quench the flame of wrath in his brother's heart also, as becomes a peacemaker (ver. 9). In this the purity of love is manifested in its greatest splendour. This precept does not apply merely to those cases where the anger of our brother is excited by injury on our part. The expression t%eiv TI Kara oov, hath aught against thee, is intentionally made general. Even .when one hates without cause, we are to quench the flame in his heart that is, not merely be placable, but also not allow our brother to hate. The thought of bringing the expression of this pure love into connexion with the act of offering sacrifice, is specially profound. In that act man approaches the eternal love to claim its compassion for himself. That is the most befitting mo- ment for exercising it on others. But to make these words of the Saviour imply a sanction of sacrifices in the New Testament, is an error. Christ evidently speaks here merely of the existing Jewish worship, which he left unassailed. (On the supposed difference be- tween KaTahkdaab) and diakkdoau, see Tholuck.) Ver. 25, 26. The following verses were doubtless spoken origin- ally in a totally different connexion, as is seen from Luke xii. 58, 59, where the question is more fully discussed. But Matthew has inter- woven the thought in a peculiar manner into our Saviour's discourse. The relation of a debtor, who does well to free himself from his creditor in season, not to be cast into prison by him, is employed by the Evangelist for a further illustration of the foregoing principle. He conceives of our relation to an angry brother, whom we have * That this command of our Lord's, as well as all that follow, ought not to be under- stood literally, is plain from the passages, Matth. xxiii. It, 19; Luke xxiv. 25, in which Jesus himself calls men " fools" ( t uupoi), and in the last passage, even the disciples. This whole interpretation of the Old Testament necessarily requires a separating of the inter- nal and external church ; in the latter, the words of Jesus do not apply literally, they are calculated only for the former. 308 MATTHEW V. 26-30. injured as a relation of debt. The avridmoq, adversary, is therefore, any one who can prefer legal claims.* Such an one the Saviour advises us to satisfy by humble, childlike submission, that the hatred may not continue, and prosecute us to our ruin. To strengthen the exhortation, ra%v, quickly, is subjoined, with an admonition of the transitoriness of life (666g = tj-^n). That which is not reduced to harmony here below, continues its destructive course hereafter. "ladi evvo&v, be gentle, ready to forgive i. e., " offer thou the hand." The idea of the continued effect of hatred, is particularly difficult, expressed, as it is, under the figure of being accused and cast into prison. (The Kpirrjg, judge, is God, and the imwerai, officers, his angels. But the ^v^aicrj, prison, is an image of perdition. As the kingdom of love forms a united whole, and by its power extends be- yond life ; so also the accusing principle (Kev. xii. 10) constitutes a mighty power, which demands its right, till a reconciliation has been made. He who will not forgive sin below shall receive no forgive- ness. (See Matth. xviii. 34.) Ver. 27, 28. The command ov poixevaeig, thou sJialt not commit adultery, is adduced as the second out of the Old Testament, which Jesus teaches us to regard more profoundly than the pharisaical teachers had been accustomed to do. That which they applied merely to the external act, the Saviour extends to the spiritual act, to the desire (trndvpia), and the tolerating of it in the soul. The desire in itself is an element in the sinfulness of human nature in general. It is not to be looked upon as actual sin when resisted with sincere earnestness ; (?) but the tolerating of it, and, consequently, the entering into it inwardly with the will (precisely what Pteneiv Trpof TO imdvfj.f)oai,, looking in order to lust, denotes), is the act itself, even though external circumstances, independent of the man's will, hinder its execution. Ver. 29, 30. With these thoughts Matthew connects words which were uttered originally on another occasion, as the context of Matth. xviii. 6, ff. ; Mark ix. 43, ff., shews ; but here also the Evan- gelist has, with profound truth, collected different elements into a whole.f With special propriety is the assurance that the command, " Thou shalt not commit adultery," teaches inward as well as out- ward purity, followed by the exhortation to preserve that purity by the utmost moral strictness, and by the greatest resoluteness in self- denial, which shuns not even the keenest pain and privation. Eyes and hand are regarded here as organs of sense, which become the in- lets of temptation, and, in turn, the means by which sin displays it- * On the principle "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another," each is debtor to another in love. f Considering the sententious form of the passage, it may, however, be allowable to gree with Tholuck in regarding the words as original in both places. MATTHEW V. 30-32. 309 self outwardly. To sacrifice these organs, in themselves useful and valuable, for the sake of sanctification that is, to abstain from the use of them, or to limit it, is the immediate lesson conveyed in this thought. (For the critical rninutise, see note on Matth. xviii. 6,ff.) Ver. 31, 32. As the third example, our Lord specifies divorce. According to Deut. xxiv. 1, it was allowable for the husband to put away his wife, but he must give her a letter of divorcement, dTToardaiov = mirns IBO. (On all that respects this subject, and particularly the Eabbinical explanations of the Mosaic ordinances, see more fully in note on Matth. xix. 3, if.) According to the ex- press assertion of Jesus (Matth. xix. 8), this regulation was made only on account of the Jews' hardness of heart, ox^ponapdia. The right conception of marriage, as an indissoluble union of soul, was embraced even in the Old Testament. But the Pharisees did not regard this indulgence as such, and considered it as belonging to the essence of marriage, that a husband can dismiss his wife when he pleases, in order to marry another. To this vulgar notion the Saviour opposes the ideal conception of marriage, and paints the evil consequences of divorce. First, the divorced woman (d-rro/U- kvUKvri), who must still be conceived as bound by the marriage-tie, is exposed to the temptation of entering on another connexion. He therefore occasions her to sin, notel avTrjv fj,oi%doOai. Next, he brings another man into the danger of forming an adulterous connexion with the divorced. Nothing is said of his own sin if he marries another, because that is self-evident ; and the case of infidelity is excepted, because then the divorce, as a fact, has preceded the out- ward separation. (See note on Matth. xix. 9.) (IlapeitTb^ Adyov TTopvctag, where rropveia denotes "adultery" as well as "fornication;" and Adyo^, like 13?, denotes here alria, -npaj^a, cause.} The thought is in itself so easy of comprehension, that it admits of no con- troversy. The Saviour evidently forbids all divorces except in the case of infidelity, where that is itself the separation, and regards fresh connexions, formed by the divorced, as adultery. But the question as to our Lord's intention in the application of this prin- ciple in his church, is more difficult. Just as in the case of oaths* (ver. 33, ff.), that intention can only be gathered from a general view of the position of the church. The external church, as a * Consult the decision of the theological faculty at Bonn on the re-marriage of divorced parties, reprinted in the Allgemeine Kirchenzeitung, 1836, Nos. 148, 149, and afterwards published separately. In the main, I agree with this decision. The church of the present day, grown up with the State, and filled with unbelieving members, can- not possibly be put on a par with the apostolical church. The fathers of the church felt it necessary early to permit modifications in practice. (See history of the exposition of the passage in Iholuck's Commentary.) Obstinate desertion and attempts to murder, early constituted valid grounds for diTorce. 310 MATTHEW V. 32. visible institution, cannot possibly be regarded as the expressed ideal of the kingdom of God. It is rather the covering merely, in which the communion of all the faithful is enveloped, as the kernel in the shell. Hence the regulations of the external church cannot answer to the ideal requirements of the kingdom ; but as it occu- pies the Old Testament level in the majority of its members, it must conform its regulations to the Old Testament. As, then, in the Old Testament, God permitted* not only divorces, but also the re-marriage of the separated parties (see Michaelis' commentaries on the laws of Moses, translated by Smith, bk. ii., and Deut. xxiv. 2), so the church may admit modifications of our Lord's law, as expressed in this passage, for the mass of its members. Nay, it must do so, because the application of the New Testament princi- ples to unconverted and unregenerate persons cannot but have injurious consequences. The Romish Church is, therefore, wrong in putting the words of Jesus authoritatively into practice in the visi- ble church, which has fallen back under the dominion of the law.f Still strictness should pervade the legislation of the church, and the effort be everywhere made to elevate the members more and more to a comprehension of the New Testament spirit.^ The case is quite different with those members of the church who also belong to the Saviour's spiritual communion ; because these latter are in a position both to recognize his requirements, and, by his power, to satisfy them. This command is in full force for them and among them, just like the command not to hate, to give to every one that asketh, etc. But since, as such, they are under the Gospel, and not under the law, there is no constraint upon them. To their Lord they stand and fall. (On the whole question, consult also the ob- servations on Matth. xix. 3, ff., and 1 Cor. vii. 15, 16.) * God nowhere permitted murder in the Old Testament, nowhere allowed fornica- tion ; but he did expressly allow divorce. Those, therefore, who insist on Christ's com- mand being literally applied in the church, as it now exists, should ponder well what they do. The subsequent commands respecting the cloak, and the smiting on the cheek, shew plainly enough that a literal fulfilment cannot be intended in the external church. The passage Matth. xix. 9, ff , is also evidently not a precept given to be exalted to a universal external law. The Saviour there speaks for those only who are able to re- ceive it. f Indeed, the Romish Church even increases the severity of the command on its own authority, since it does not permit divorce quoad vinctdum even in case of adultery. \ The Saviour is not here legislating. He is simply explaining that divorce for other reasons than adultery, and re-marriage in such cases, is positively sinful. Thus much, at least, follows, that the Christian Church cannot bless such a positively sinful act. [E. (The above discussion may seem strange to those who are unacquainted with the opinions and practices respecting divorce prevalent in Germany. Divorce is much more common than in England, and is granted for many other causes than that of unfaithful- ness. The question has been much debated, and some of the pastors have felt strong scruples in solemnizing marriages, where one or both of the parties may be persons who have been divorced. The defence offered above is very inadequate. The distinction be- MATTHEW V. 33-37. 311 Ver. 33-37. Fourth observation on oaths. The plain require- ment of the Old Testament in Lev. xix. 12, ova KmopKT'ioeL$, thou slialt not foreswear thyself, was distorted by the Rabbins from a comparison of Numb. xxx. 3 ; Deut. xxiii. 21 (where vows [upitoi = tr-ins] which were, for the most part, accompanied by oaths, are the subject), so that they taught the evasion of their fulfilment towards men through a hypocritical reference of them to God. To this hypocritical behaviour the Saviour opposes that of the children of God. The command of Moses, " Thou shalt not swear falsely," Jesus converts into, " Thou shalt not swear at all; because he sees in swearing, just as in the case of divorce above, nothing but a per- mission rendered necessary by sin. But in order to combine the ex- pression of this abstract principle in the kingdom of God, with a refutation of the hypocritical Rabbinical interpretation of the law of Moses, Jesus specifies four forms of swearing familiar to the Jews ; and demonstrates, first, that all of them refer to God, and that it is only in their being referred to him that they mean any thing ; next, that they are, one and all, inadmissible in the kingdom of -God. The subjoined clauses, "For it is God's throne," etc., refer to that Rabbinical interpretation, that a man need not perform oaths that do not refer to God himself. For this reason, in the case of each form of swearing, its reference to God is demon- strated by our Lord ; and it is implied, that it is only by virtue of this reference that it can have any meaning. (See more fully in note on Matth, xxiii. 16, ff.) The conceiving of heaven and earth as throne and footstool of God (Isa. Ixvi. 1) is, of course, figura- tive ; but the figure is founded on the true thought, that to the Omnipresent Being heaven and earth stand in different relations. He who is everywhere present, is yet everywhere different. Jerusa- lem, as the seat of the visible theocracy, is called God's city (Psalm xlviii. 2 ;) and an oath by the city acquires its significancy from this peculiar relation. The reason subjoined to the oath : " by the head,"* is obscure. That oath is similar to the Mohammedan swearing by the beard. It is explained, however, if we take in this case negatively, what, in the other cases, was expressed positively. tween an external and internal church results only from laxity of discipline, conjoined with the absorption of the church in the State, which prevails in the German Govern- ments. The external church is, in fact, those who have the name of Christians, and nothing more, and are not, therefore, of Christ's church, and would not be in visible communion, if a right state of tilings, as to discipline, were restored. It can never be admitted, that there is any power on earth that can assume authority to relax Christ's plain command. Tn the church, his command is law, and, so far as marriage and divorce come under secular jurisdiction, the government of a Christian country is bound to follow the precepts of Christian morals.) Tr. * The construction of opiaat with the accusative (James v. 12), or with Kara and the genitive (as in Heb. vi. 16), is pure Greek. In tho New Testament it is generally construed with KV or V after the analogy of a yattis in Hebrew. 312 MATTHEW V. 37-42. What impotent man cannot accomplish make one hair white or black i. e., produce the slightest change in himself the Almighty can accomplish. Dost thou swear, then, by thyself? thy oath can have no meaning, except as thou intendest him who wills that thou thyself shouldst exist. Hence every oath, if it is to have any meaning, refers to God, since he only, the Eternal, can give a pledge for the security of what is transitory. But as the entire pro- hibition of all swearing is joined to this thought, it is evident that we may not draw this conclusion : " Since all objects of adjuration have a reference to God, by which they acquire their import, we are to swear only by God ;" but, on the contrary, " Since we are to re- frain from swearing in general, and all oaths refer originally to God, the eternal and true, we are not to employ any oath ; the simplest statement of opinion is sufficient, any thing further has spruDg from the source of evil, and become necessary only by reason of sin." The idea, that only the abuse of oaths is forbidden, can never be defended by a true interpretation. In the passage, James v. 12, a different view might, for a moment, commend itself, on account of the different position of the words ; but even there, on a closer ex- amination, the connexion requires the sense of prohibiting oaths in general. This absolute prohibition of our Lord can occasion no dif- ficulty, [if we consider that here again Christ is not giving a, formal law, but uttering a truth. The Jews in taking oaths, proceeded on the assumption that there are oaths which must be kept, and others which may be violated, while declarations without this sanction, may be so with entire impunity. Our Saviour sets aside entirely this artificial distinction. An oath founded on the false conception of being essential to create an obligation to keep one's word is sin. Every word must be truth, and uttered in a conscious appeal to an omnipresent and holy God. Every word must be an oath in the true sense. Hence follows that before the court (Matth. xxvi. 63) and even elsewhere (Bom. i. 9 ; ix. 1 ; 2 Cor. ii. 17 ; xi. 10 ; Phil. i. 8 ; 1 Thess. ii. 5 and 10) it must be allowed to call God to witness ; provided that this be done for the sake of others, and not under the delusive idea that it is by our adjuration that we are obligating our- selves to speak truth. E.] Ver. 38-42. The fifth instance comprises the nature of the law in a general maxim, and opposes the evangelical principle to the pharisaical conception of it. The idea of retaliation (jus talionis), which is the foundation of law in general, is expressed in o0a/,ju6v dvTi tydatyav scil. dwtretf K. r. A., an eye for an eye, etc. Exod. xxi. 24. But the Pharisees made such a use of retaliation, that it could not but become a cloak for revenge and uncharitableness. Christ, on the contrary, conceives the idea of law in the spirit of the purest love, and derives thence the command of self-denial and resignation. MATTHEW V. 38-42. 313 u Eye for eye, tooth, for tooth," is an eternal law in the government jf the world ; but love takes the brother's fault on itself, and, by thus becoming like him, causes him to become like it. Thus, out of the jus talionis, love procures redemption and forgiveness, which is nothing but retribution reversed, and cannot, therefore, exist with- out the sufferings of the Redeemer. This conquering by yielding is the essence of the G-ospel ; the law is founded on the dvTiarfjvai rw TTovrjp&, repelling force by force.* The manifestations of love in con- trast with the rude character of retaliation, are then presented in four instances, arranged in an anti-climax. Outrage on the person is the most grievous (pam&iv is of kindred meaning with KO^O^I^SIV, the latter, however, denoting rather blows with the fist) ; next to this in order comes the demanding of property (ttpivecdai, to claim before a tribunal); asking, as the mildest form of presenting a re- quest, forms the close. Between the two latter forms, dyyapeveiv, to constrain, is placed, as partaking of both. (The term is of Persian origin, but was adopted into the prevalent languages of antiquity ; the Aramaic language also adopted it. See Suxtorf. Lex. talm. s. v. In Luke vi. 30, the words nal dnb rov acpovro^ rd ad p) , are added the general thought for the particular instancea in Matthew. ('A-rrairew = tow, to exact, to demand.) The preceding observations on marriage and oaths apply like- wise to the carrying out of this command. The Saviour does not intend by his precept for his kingdom to invalidate the truth of the maxim, " An eye for an eye," as a legal principle ; he who holds the legal position cannot, and must not, be treated otherwise than according to the law.f But for him who is possessed by the spirit of the Gospel, without having as yet overcome the power of sin, the conduct indicated by the Saviour is suitable. Where the spirit is still uncultured and hard, there it would not be love, but unkind- ness, to shew unappreciated love. What, for instance, could be more unkind than a literal use of the precept, navrl rw al-ovvri oe 6idov, give TO EVEKY MAN that asketh of thee ? It would be to form begging vagabonds. Hence the application and exercise of the laws of love cannot be reduced to fixed rules ; love alone teaches * "We cannot very well take irovripu as neuter here ; for it is our duty, under all cir- cumstances, to oppose what is evil in itself. But here the evil is viewed in its effects in an individual, in whom there is, at the same time, a susceptibility for good. In reference to this mixture of good and bad, the Saviour may say, that the member of the kingdom of God does not resist the manifestations of sin, in order to accomplish for the good a perfect conquest in the heart of his brother, by the manifestation of forbearing love, which is ex- pressed thereby. f Thus the Saviour himself answers the rude servant who struck him on the face : If I have spoken evil, prove that it is evil ; but if I have spoken right, why smitest thou me? John xviii. 23. To turn to him the other cheek would have been an inn-action of love, as it would have brought the man into the temptation of increasing his sin by increased turpitude. Paul behaves similarly, Acts xxiii. 3. 314 MATTHEW V. 42-45. us to apply them properly, and enables the scribe, instructed to the kingdom of heaven, to bring out of his treasure things new and old. For this order of things, before the full manifestation of the king- dom of God, the law still retains its application ; yet the Gospel has its sphere, in which it is ever gradually unfolding its nature more perfectly. Ver. 43-45. At last Jesus comes to what is highest and final to love itself. The command, ^sn^ pansi, Thou slialt love thy neigh- bour (Lev. xix. 18), applied it is true, immediately, as the context shews, to the nation of Israel, which, to them, in their partial state of development, represented that collective humanity, to which neighbour, in its profoundest sense referred. But the hypocritical Pharisees drew the inference from this command, that we were at liberty to hate our enemy. ('E^0p6f , like hostis, primarily " one not of the same people." See the passages quoted in Wetstcin and Schottgen, ad loc.) They not only tolerated hatred of enemies, as something at the time not quite conquerable, but they cherished it as something allowable, nay, included (by implication) in the com- mand. To this outrageous interpretation of the Old Testament, Jesus opposes his own, which unfolds the undeveloped truth from its inward nature and principle. The fulness of love, taught by Jesus, and imparted from his fulness to his people, not only extends over the narrow circle of national affinities, but makes what is op- posite, as well as what is akin to it, the object of its exercise. The different manifestations of love (dyarrav, et>AoyeZv, /ca/lwf TTOIEIV, irpo- oevxeodai), form a climax, and are in contrast with the forms of hatred ; these latter, indeed, as such, cannot and ought not to be loved ; but the individuals are, in whom they are seen, since there is in them the latent germ of a nobler existence, which is to be awakened by the power of love. But the love here enjoined, is no passive love, residing merely in the domain of feeling ; for that can never be excited by the manifestations of hatred, but is influenced only by kindred qualities ; it is rather love as a power of the will, which is able to overcome all (opposing) feelings. For this reason, too, assimilation to God is assigned as the end of the manifestation of love to enemies. (In vl6$, son, the representation of the image, existing in the Father, is expressed.) As God abhors evil, and commands us to abhor it (Rom. xii. 9), but blesses the evil man; so does he, too, who lives in pure, divine love. The Spirit of God in him teaches him to separate the evil from the man ; and while he hates the former, to love the latter. But such love man cannot obtain for himself by a determination of will or by any effort, for it is divine ; he can receive it only by spiritual communication in faith. Yet this by no means excludes the effort to exercise it before it is possessed, as it is that very effort that awakens us to the conscious- MATTHEW V. 45-48. 315 ness of its necessity. ('ErrT/pea^v occurs, besides in this passage, only in Luke vi. 28 ; 1 Peter iii. 16. According to Pollux, it is a law term, meaning " to drag before a judge with ignominy and in- sult ;" then, in general, " to injure," " to insult.") Luke adds an- other trait, lend hoping for nothing again (vi. 35), where, likewise, sincere, disinterested love is expressed. Luke has expanded this thought afterwards, when he comes to portray the forms in which natural love manifests itself. On the whole, with the exception of one unessential transposition, Luke has the same thoughts here, and they must, therefore, certainly be regarded as original, integral parts of the Sermon on the Mount. Ver. 46, 47. As a parallel to this sacred love, which includes even what is hostile in the sphere of its exercise, and which is bestowed in regeneration alone, Jesus brings forward natural love, which loves only what is akin to it, and, in that, itself essentially. (Ephes. v. 28, " He that loveth his wife, loveth himself.") Such is the prevailing power of love in the Old Testament, a few traces of love to enemies excepted (as in the case of David, 1 Sam. xxvi.) which point to a future higher grade of religious life. As such it does not stand opposed to the higher love of Christ, but beneath, as something subordinate, which has its analogy even in the animal world. The rek&vai and tdviicoi, publicans and Gentiles, in Matthew, the duaprtiXoi, sinners (nopvai, Matth. xxi. 81) in Luke, are men- tioned as standing emblems, with the Pharisees, of what is despised. In the publican, in particular, the prominent characteristic is being involved by the calls of his station in the lowest worldly connexions ; for which reason the taxgatherers are used as a symbol of worldli- ness and its temptations. ^A.mrd&odai is a general term for tokens of love of all kinds.) In these verses, moreover, the idea of [uadog, reivard, appears again. (See note on ver. 12.) Natural love is represented as being accompanied by a less reward than pure love. There is evidently a condescension here to the legal level, for it is just the nature of sincere love to seek no other reward than that which is in itself. But as, in fact, the possession of it involves all that constitutes blessedness, because God is love (1 John iv. 8), and no one can love but he in whom God dwells ; it is certainly true, also, that its reward is great. But a distinction between love and its reward, and of an effort to attain the former for the sake of the latter, can exist only on the level of the law ; pure love seeks itself for its own sake, for it includes in itself all that can be desired. Yer. 48. The last words contained in this verse are, as it were, the key-stone which completes the whole. The general result not merely of our Lord's last commands, but of all that precedes, is : Let perfection be your aim. ("Rereads ovv is parallel with OTTWC yt-vr]o6e above, ver. 45.) For the observance of but one of these commands, 316 MATTHEW V. 48 ; VI. 1-6. as here laid down by our Lord, nothing short of perfection is suffi- cient. It does not, therefore, alter the thought, if, instead of rtteioi, perfect, as it is in Matthew, we read olKrip^ove^, merciful, as it is in Luke vi. 36. For neither pure love nor mercy can be con- ceived alone in the human soul, without the other qualities involved in perfection ; so that all must necessarily be conceived as joined with the one. But to refine upon the idea of " perfect," and to understand it of a relative perfection, is evidently forbidden by the words subjoined : &anep 6 -narrip V/MJV, as your father', which, as com- pared with ver. 45, cannot mean any thing else than that the image of God is to be represented in men, as the sons of the highest. Ac- cordingly, the passage is parallel with that in the Old Testament, ISN fc'nj? 13 tnfc-ij? ti^: (Lev. xi. 44), which Peter adopts ; ayioi yevea6e, on eyo> dyiog elpt, be ye holy, etc. (1 Pet. i. 16), and is ex- plained by it. That is, as in that passage the requirement of holi- ness on man's part is founded on the holiness of God, so here also in relation to perfection ; so that this passage may be interpreted, " Be ye perfect, because God is perfect." The perfection of man, as well as his holiness, is not separate from that of God, such as man might possibly attain of himself ; it is the divine perfection itself; God himself designs to be the perfect and holy One in man. In this way the passage must be interpreted, on the principle that every speaker is t]ie expositor of his own words, even though we should regard the notion itself as false. Matth. vi. 1-6. After this prefatory comparison of the holy character of the doctrine of Jesus with the unholy teachings of the doctors of the law, the thought of v. 20 is resumed. The reality is opposed to the appearance ; the latter has what is visble and tran- sitory for its object and proper end (OTTW^ 8o%ao6&aiv VTTO r&v dvdpunuv, that they may have glory of men), the former what is invisible and eternal ; God in heaven is placed in contrast with men on earth. Aiitaioovvr)* righteousness, conveys again, as in ver. 20, the general idea of a right relation to God, viewed in the light both of the Old and the New Testament. This contrast is viewed in reference to alms (ver. 2) and prayer (ver. 5) as the prominent man- ifestations of the religious life. (Ziakm&iv, sound a trumpet, is not to be taken literally, but figuratively, " to do any thing with osten- tation." 'M.iodbv dire%eiv, have a reward, is spoken of in reference to the time of the future general reward, when only what is eternal finds its reward, because it was accomplished by the working of God's eternal Spirit.) The figure in ver. 3 cannot mean total uncon- sciousness, which should in no case exist, but only the absence of * The reading e?.ej?/iOffw% which is supported by very many Codd., is, probably, only an explanation of dtKaioavvrj, which, in later Greek, is used for "alms," like the Hebrew Paul uses it in 2 Cor. ix. 9, for "kindness," " charitableness." MATTHEW VI. 6-18. 317 self-appropriation of the act ; every good deed must be referred to its origin to the spiritual source from which it springs ; there it has even now its hidden reward, and hereafter its open one. To the outward proclamation of works of love by the Pharisees is opposed the humble ignorance of one's doings. (Tapielov = n^y = tfffepwov, a chamber, to which they could retire for prayer, in quiet, Acts x. 9 ; see also Isa. xxvi. 20. The term vnoicpir^g, hypocrite, occurs frequently in the Gospels e. g., in this chap., ver. 5, 16 ; vii. 5 ; xv. 7 ; xvi. 3 ; xxiii. 13, and frequently in Matthew ; again in Luke vi. 42 ; xi. 44, etc. The verb vnoicpiveadai occurs only in Luke xx. 20. It is properly originally = dnotcpiveodai, to answer, then particularly, " to answer as a character in a play" i. e., " to act on the stage." Then, in general, " to assume a form not one's own" " to represent it." In the New Testament it is always used of religious form, with which the inward nature does not corre- spond.) Ver. 7-13. These verses bring out the last remark in a special application. In Phariseeism, not only does the character of hypo- crisy manifest itself in prayer, but also the heathen notion (perpetually reproduced from the heathenism inherent in human nature), that prayer avails as opus operatum, and, consequently, from length and copiousness of words. From the pure idea of God, the Saviour teaches us to regard the inward disposition and the purity of thought resulting thence as that which is well-pleasing to God. Matthew also presents, as a pattern, a prayer given by Jesus, which is per- vaded by simplicity, depth, and humility. Luke (xi. 1) records the circumstances which occasioned our Lord to give such an injunction. The disciples felt their spiritual poverty, and supplicated his rich grace to teach them to pray. Hence, too, it is said, u thus pray ye ;" for it is a prayer calculated for the position of sinful men, not for him who knew no sin. (BarroAoyeTv* is not from sas, effutivit; but according to Suidas it is derived d-nb Edrrov TIVO$ paicpov$ not -noXvari^ovg vpvovf Troiriacgvro^.^ Hence ftarro^oyia = TroAv/loyta.) Superstition places the reason of the hearing of prayer not in the grace of God, but in its own godless work. Unbelief deduces the uselessness of prayer from the omniscience of God, in whom it does not itself believe. Faith rests its humble prayer precisely on this holy, gracious, divine knowledge. Thus our Lord teaches us to pray in faith, because God knows, before the petition what we need (xpeia, need, taken both bodily and spiritually), and, consequently, can himself prompt the acceptable prayer, and fulfil it accordingly. * See the copious discussion on this rare term, which is nowhere used but by Sim- plidus in one passage (in Epict. enchir., c. 37) in TholucWs Comm. (Clark's Biblical Cab., No. xx., p. 114.) f " One Eattus, who composed long prolix hymns." 318 MATTHEW VI. 7-13. The words olde yap, for he knoivs, are to be taken as the reason which prevents the Christians from praying after the heathen man- ner. The believer does not pray for God's sake (to do him a ser- vice), but for his own sake ; that God knows, affords to him the consolation that he cannot ask wrong ; for he is concerned only for God's will, not for his own. The prayer of the believer is therefore nothing less than the divine will itself becoming manifest in hu- manity ; thus the Lord's Prayer is conceived. It is an expression of the highest, final, divine plans in the government of the world, both as to the whole and the individual. With reference, first, to the state of the text of THE LORD'S PRAYER,* the doxology at the close is undoubtedly of later origin, and is added for liturgical purposes. In the Const. Apost., vii. 24, it appears in the process of formation; it reads, on aov lanv rifiaoikna d^ al&va<;. 'A.fi7)v. For thine is the kingdom for ever. Amen. But the contents are profound and agreeable to the spirit of the prayer, and, therefore, certainly belonging to a period when pure Christian feeling prevailed in the church. It is wanting in Codd., B. D. L., and in many others, as Griesbach's New Testament shews. Still it is found as early as the Peshito, where, however', it may be an inter- polation. So also the petitions, " Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven ;" and, " But deliver us from evil," are wanting in the text of St. Luke. They are wanting not only in B. L., but also in the earliest fathers, as in Origen (de Orat., p. 226, edit, de la Hue, vol. ii.), who expressly notices the omission. But it does not follow from this that they are spurious in the prayer ; Luke rather ap- pears to have abridged here, in the same manner as we noticed at Matth. v. 1. These petitions do not, indeed, form an essential part of the prayer, since they are included in those immediately preced- ing ; but for an unfolding of the meaning they are an integral part.f The question, Whether Christ meant to lay down a stated formula in this prayer ? may be best answered to this effect, that the Saviour certainly had in view, as his primary object, to teach the disciples to pray in spirit ; but in so far as he contemplated the arising of an outward church that should require liturgical formulas, he might in- tend its permanent use also ; and the church has done right to re- tain it. But that no value is to be ascribed to the letter, is shewn by the variation with which the Evangelists themselves record the prayer. In Kabbinical and Talmudical writings (according to Wct- * "We possess separate expositions of this prayer by Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian. f On the form of the Lord's prayer found in Luke, see the more copious remarks in note on Luke xi. 3, ff. On the omission of the doxology, see Rodiger's dissertation at the end of the synopsis, p. 231, ff. A transposition of the second and third petitions in Ter- tullian is discussed by Nitzsch, in the " Studien und Kritiken," published by Wlmann and Umbreit, 1830. II. 4, S. 846, ff. Meyer's " Blatter fur hohere Wahrheit," Tb, v., S. 10, ff., give an exposition of the prayer. MATTHEW VI. 7-13. 319 stein, Sclwttgen, Lightfoot, in their notes on this passage) there are very many thoughts akin to the individual petitions. We learn thence how much of what is spiritual and true is contained in the Jewish writings ; only it is generally mixed with error by the pe- dantic Rabbins. Bat it is very perverse to infer froin this relation- ship of the prayer to Rabbinical passages, that Jesus compiled his prayer by reflection from such elements of Jewish prayers. What- ever of noble and true was presented to him in the national culture wrought only to stimulate his inward development ; and even what he did derive thence, he reproduced with fresh life from his own cre- ative and vitalizing power. But the exposition has not only to un- fold the individual thoughts, but to regard them in their connexion. Regarded as a whole, the Lord's Prayer contains but one thought the desire of the kingdom of God* into which all the prayers of God's children (and, as such, Christ here teaches us to pray) may be resolved. This one thought, however, is conceived in two relations ; first, in reference to God's relation to man thus in the first three petitions, which represent the kingdom of God as advancing to com- pletion, and the highest purpose of God expressed as a wish ; next, in reference to man's relation to God thus in the last four petitions, in which the hindrances to God's kingdom are noticed. The first part commences, therefore, with speaking of the riches of God : THY name be hallowed ; THY kingdom come to us ; THY will be done. The second part, on the other hand, speaks of the poverty of man : To us give daily bread ; To us forgive sins ; Us lead not into temptation ; Us deliver from evil. In the significant doxology, the certain hope is expressed of the prayer being heard a hope founded in the nature of the unchange- able God himself, who, as the chief good, will cause the good to be realized in a manifest form (the kingdom of God.) At the same time, this prayer admits of an application to the individual (who is compelled, however, in the constantly recurring plural, to regard himself in connexion with all), as well as to collective humanity ; for this very reason, that being uttered from the inmost soul of hu- manity, and seizing the relation of God to the sinful race in its * Luther is right, therefore, in saying, " the true Christian prays an everlasting Lord's Prayer," inasmuch as his whole desire centres in God's kingdom. 320 MATTHEW VI. 7-13. deepest root, it meets the wants of the whole and of the individual equally, provided always that he is living in faith. Every prayer directed not to transitory particulars, but to eternal things, is in- cluded in the Lord's Prayer. In the invocation : " Our Father which art in heaven" (narep ^JMJV 6 KV rolg ovpavot^), there is implied, first, an elevation above what is earthly and transitory to what is eternal and enduring ; and, next, the consciousness of our relationship to the eternal. The name Father presupposes the consciousness of sonship (Kom. viii. 15). This sentiment marks the prayer as belonging to the New Testament ; for though Isaiah exclaims, ^N nnsj 13, thou art our father (Isa. Ixiii. 16), yet that must be viewed as a momentary illumination of the higher spirit of the New Testament ; in general, the relation of servant to master (in which relationship is subordinate) prevails in the Old Tes- tament. The first petition : dyiaoOiJTb) TO ovofid aov, halloived be thy name, is closely connected with the two following. ' Ayid&adai, used of what is unholy, means "to be made holy ;"* but, used of what is holy, it means to be recognized as such" = "!)?*. f The spread of the pure worship of God is, therefore, the subject of this petition. Only, as Augustine (de Corr. et Grat. c. 6) very truly remarks, this is not here to be understood of outward progress, but of inward ; so that the meaning is, " sanctificetur nomen tuum in nobis. A knowledge of what is holy (not in idea merely, but experimentally), presupposes inward holiness ; for only kindred minds know what is akin (Psalm xxxvi. 10). The meaning of dyid&aOai, be hallowed, in this jalace, is therefore much like that of dogd&odai, glorified, as em- ployed by John (John xiii. 31 ; xiv. 13 ; xv. 8, and elsewhere) in the sense of being glorified. The divine name (ovofw = op) is put for the divine essence itself, inasmuch as it expresses and reveals the latter in its nature. (See the locus classicus, Exod. xxiii. 21). The divine must therefore, first of all, glorify itself in human nature, and by that means become known to man in its true nature ; not till then can the kingdom of God come. The second petition : IWeru fj fiaoiXeia aov, thy kingdom come, regards the divine power exerting itself within, which is supposed, in the first petition, as appearing outwardly ; [from the original source of all grace the suppliant passes over to the final consummation of the plan of salvation, comp. Kev. xxii. 20 ; in the third petition again to ,the present] ; but, in so far as the kingdom of God appears again as displaying and devel- * Thduck gives it the signification, " to treat as holy," " to keep holy," which supposes, however, " a being holy," if it is to be real. It seems, therefore, more natural to under- stand it in this place as denoting the cause, rather than the consequence. f That God be honoured should be the Christian's first desire. God is not for the sake of man, but is God of and for himself. The name of God, Jehovah, designates his self-ex- istence. Before asking God's grace toward us, we must first of all acknowledge him as the being who owes nothing to us, and to whom we owe all as God. [B. MATTHEW VI. 7-13. 321 oping itself, Christ subjoins, in the third petition, fid oov K. r. A., thy will be done, etc., in order to express the consum- mation of the kingdom of God, which consists in the unlimited fulfil- ment of God's will ; so that the three petitions stand related to each other as beginning, end, and middle. The words " as in heaven, so in earth/' express the unqualified fulfilment of the will, which now ap- pertains to the heavenly state only, but which, in the consumma- tion, is to extend to earthly things also. In the second half of the Lord's Prayer, the subjective distance from the kingdom of God, and the steps of approach to it, are ap- prehended and described with the supplementary thought, " That it may be so, give us daily the bread of life." That apro^, bread, does not denote bodily food merely, is seen from the context ; it stands among purely spiritual petitions, and supposes spiritually-disposed petitioners.* True, the suppliant should set out from his physical existence, and ascend to what is higher ; for which reason the refer- ence to bodily nourishment.; on which the existence of the whole man depends, should not be excluded, nay, it may even be regarded as the immediate one ; but the spiritual food must still be looked upon as included, since otherwise the important petition for the Spirit of God would be entirely wanting in the prayer. (On apro?, as spiritual food to man, as a spirit, see Matth. iv. 4 ; John vi. 32, compared with 41, 48, 50, 51. The word imovaios, which occurs nowhere else, is difficult.f Some derive it from the particle imovaa, which is used like sequens [Acts vii. 26 ; xvi. 11 ; xxi. 18 ; xxiii. 11}, particularly in the phrase ?/juepa i-movaa = nh, which, accord- ing to Jerome, was used in this passage in the Ev. sec. Hebr. [Comm. in Matth. ad loc\. But this interpretation, which Dr. Paulus ex-. tends even to the future in general, is in contradiction to Matth. vi. 34, where care for the morrow is forbidden. In that case the con- nexion of crjfiepov with tmovmog is inappropriate. Others more cor- rectly derive it from ovaia in the sense of substantialis so that the term is meant to define the bread more accurately in its nature, nourishment for the true being of man or what is sufficient for ex- istence what is enough. Thus Tholuck.) In the consciousness of the dependence of spiritual and bodily life on God and his preserving power, the consciousness of guilt is * As heaven, where angels perfectly fulfil the will of God, stands separated from earth, where we still dwell in a state of expectancy, we need for our earthly life, earthly, daily bread. It is better to refrain from spiritualizing the simple sense of the prayer. [E. f Origen (de Orat, p. 94) regards it as a word coined by the Evangelist himself, with- out giving an etymology. The derivation from the participle is admissible after the ana- logy of TTepiovaiOf fdeXovaioc. But it may be derived from the participle of elvai as well as from that of levai. See Tholuck in his comm. on the passage. \ The word is not ITTOVGIOG but iTriovatof, being derived not from the noun but from the noun ovaia and the prep. tiri. [E. VOL. I. 21 322 MATTHEW VI. 7-13. implied, which is expressed in the fifth petition, and from which the desire proceeds to see all hindrances arising thence taken away by forgiving love. That the prayer is that of a believer, is evident from " as we also forgive ;" in which words forgiveness is again (see v. 7) made dependent on the forgiving love in the heart, which alone permits us to believe in forgiveness, without denying that this love is itself the gift of grace.* The idea of debt is taken very widely, comprehending sin in general, which, even in believers, contracts new debts, that need continual forgiveness i. e., blotting out. See the similes, v. 25, and Luke vii. 41, ff. ; and in ver. 14, immediately below. A lively perception of sin is accompanied by a sense of weakness, such as may not only disobey God's command occasionally, but even fall from it altogether. This is the view taken in the sixth petition. (On Tteipd&iv, see note on Matth. iv. 1.) The dangerous nature of temptation, from which the children of God beg to be de- livered, lies in the disproportion between the power of the new life, and that of evil. The fear of God, therefore, in the believer begs for the removal of the cup.f The Saviour having been already led into one temptation at the beginning of his ministry, and having overcome it to the saving of men,! P ra ys himself (for he became in all things like us, only without sin), in the second temptation, at the close of his ministry : " if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." (Matth. xxvi. 39.) In this petition, therefore, the assurance * The words, " as we also forgive," must not be understood as determining the mea- sure of forgiveness ; for if God did not forgive men in a higher degree than they them- selves shew forgiveness, no one would be forgiven. God always forgives completely and absolutely ; while man oftentimes, even when honestly struggling, can forgive partially only that is, so as that something yet remains in the mind. The words are rather to be taken as a proof how much God is forgiving love, since he not only forgives the believer his own sin, but also enables him to forgive others. Being able to forgive others, is ac- cordingly a token to the believer of his being in a state of grace ; and the petition may therefore be thus paraphrased : " Forgive us our sins that is, reveal the entire fulness of thy forgiving love unto us, as thou givest us to taste it in this, that in thy power we can forgive." Moreover, we must not overlook, that forgiving sins toward man is alone spoken of; for we cannot and ought not to forgive sins against God. Thus David forgives Shimei's sin against himself, but on his deathbed he retains the sin against the Lord; and thus does the Apostle Paul also, according to 2 Tim. iv. 14-16. j- rie(pa denotes primarily "to make invisible," thence "to spoil," "to destroy," as ver. 19. Here, " to disfigure" the Latin, squalere. To sorrowing negligence in externals is opposed joyful attire, denoted by anointing (dAe/>at), and washing (vtyai). In that (apparently open) exhibition of the religious life, therefore, hypocrisy is manifest, which might be er- roneously looked for in this (apparently not open) concealment of it ; for the essence of piety is the most inward reference of our life to God. All stealthy glances towards the external are the fruit of hypocrisy. ('Ev ro> KPVTTT&, in secret, is opposed to being open before men. It is, therefore, equivalent to the inward man, to whom God reveals himself.) This fundamental thought, that God himself must be the end of human striving, extends to the close of the chapter. It is the thread by which the different thoughts hang, which, according to Luke, stood in a different relation to Christ's discourses. Ver. 19-21. Earthly possessions are placed in contrast with heavenly ones in their indestructible nature, and the spirit is directed thither to the source of all truth. (2?fr, tinea e>&, Isa. li. 8. Bpwerj? denotes in general the consuming process to which all earthly things are subject. The meaning " rust" does not suit ; for gold and silver do not rust.* In Mai. iii. 11, it is used also for a kind of worm.) The union of the heart with the treasure is assigned as the reason of this admonition to store up heavenly possessions. The treasure is regarded as the aim of the longing and desire which proceed from the heart. The concentrating of them on created things must pro- duce misery, since the soul is destined for what is eternal. Ver. 22-24. Seeking after earthly treasure (which is so very contrary to man's inward spiritual nature) implies, therefore, inward impurity. The connexion with the preceding context is not alto- gether simple, though not to be mistaken. This circumstance indi- cates, doubtless, a different original position of the thought. (See Luke xi. 34, 35.) The relations of our spiritual .life are illus- trated by physical ones. It is remarkable that the eye should be called hv%vos , lamp. It seems to be merely the capacity of receiving * See, however, note on James v. 3. MATTHEW VI. 22-24. 325 light. But capacity to receive light implies a partaking in the nature of light. " Were not thine eye sunny," says Gothe, with great depth and truth, " how could it ever behold the sun ?" (See Psalm xxxvi. 9.) Thus the eye, with the light which flows to it, is that which itself illuminates, which makes light a view which is optically true.* The condition of the bodily eye, however, modifies its action : d-rrhovc;, single Trovrjpog = dnrkovg , double-sighted, as it were (ver. 24), or even totally blind, to which OKOTUVOV, dark, refers. Just in the same way the Saviour views the spirit's inward eye the reason the power of receiving divine things, f Its capacity for the higher light implies the nature of light in it, whence $&$ KV aoi = hvx,vo$, ver. 22. Jesus accordingly does not teach the absolute moral depravity of man-J That noble power destined for divine things, when drawn away to what is sensual, becomes blindness. The inward light is dissipated, and the power of sight destroyed. Spiritual darkness then is more fearful than bodily blindness. Luke, however (xi. 36), brings out the other and opposite result that is, the entire inward illumination of our being, by which the very last traces of darkness (jj>rj %ov ri pepog GKOTMVOV) vanish. (On the spe- cial difficulties in the passage, see note on Luke xi. 36.) This is followed immediately by the mention of two masters, in which com- parison the double-sightedness glancing stealthily from God to the world is expressed in another wny. The appropriateness of the contrast lies in the completeness with which the one excludes the other. The relation of the masters to each other does not allow of indifference among the servants. Hate ([tioelv'), therefore, stands opposed to love (ayarrav), and despise (Karafypovdv), to hold fast (dvTKxeadat.) ('AvTe%eadat nvog, properly "to seize any thing," "to hold it fast," = p 11 !**, thence "to pursue any thing with diligence and interest," 1 Thess. v. 14 ; Titus i. 9.) Majuwvaf, or Map^vd^ (according to Luke xvi. 9), from iteia, on the authority of JBuxtorf, (lex. talm., p. 1217), is so used in the Targums for the Hebrew ysa, neb, that the term may be taken as equivalent to the Greek TT^OVTO^ wealth, Augustine observes on the passage : " Congruit et punicum nomen, nam lucrum punice Mammon dicitur." In opposition to * Philo expresses the same thought (de vit. theor. ii. 482, edit. Mangey) when he says ; f/ Beotyihrig ipvx% uduvara inyova TIKTEI, Gireipavrog elf avTijv UKTIVU^ vorjruf rot irarpog, alg dvvTJaeTai Oeupelv TU acxjiiaf 66-yfj.a.Ta. (See also Gesenius in the Lexicon, s. ., hfc, Job xx. 9.) f The Reason, provided it has been made clear and pure, can receive divine things. It has a receptive faculty ; but it cannot originate any thing divine out of itself. It is carefully to be distinguished from the understanding the faculty of ideas. In the New Testament the former is vovi;, the latter (j>p6vTjat(. (See the author's Opuscula, p. 152, sq.) Philo de cond. mundi, t. i., p. 12, says : onep voiif ev ifrvxy, TOVTO 68a^bf v a6fj.ari. \ The " absolute moral depravity of man," is a subject which our Saviour lias not here under consideration. The strongest afflrmers of that depravity yet admit man's possession of the natural faculties for apprehending moral truth. [K. 326 MATTHEW VI. 24-27. God, money, when personified, appears as an idol, after the manner of Plutus, without our being able to shew that an idol of this name was outwardly worshipped. In the Saviour's meaning, the name Mammon applies to the author of evil, which consists precisely in confounding what is not divine with what is. Evil we must hate (Bom. xii. 9) if we are to love good. The natural man, from the fear of encountering the world, where good and evil are found mixed, endeavours to avoid this alternative ; but Christ compels a decision of the heart to pure love, which gives at once sincere hatred against sin, never against the person of the sinner. Ver. 25-34. The Saviour raises man, involved in his common earthly wants, and wasting his poor existence in the anxious satisfy- ing of them, from subjection to the prince of this world, who occupies his slaves with such cares, to faith in God, which gives birth to a holy care that dispels those grovelling vexations of our daily life. The passage, Phil. iv. 6, is a commentary on these words. In it the Apostle puts the command : p/dev nepifivare, be anxious for nothing, in contrast with the direction to ask of God what is needful. Prayer is, therefore, the opposite of anxious care, because in prayer man commits the care to God. The natural man cares without praying. The brute, and the man who has become as the brute, care as little as they pray. Ver. 25. The discourse turns on the double meaning of V^OT = *??. which denotes, 1, life; 2, soul. Viewed in their essence, the two meanings involve each other ; but the carnal man places the principle of life in the flesh, and regards eating and drinking as its chief requirements. For the believer, the life of man, as such, is in the soul, and the soul alone is to him the principle of life (that is, the ^>v^r\ viewed as V>V%T/ TtvevpaTiKrty, and, consequently, he provides for it chiefly. The words : \tspi\Lvav rjj -^vxfi, are not, therefore, equivalent to h rq ^v^y = napdia ; but i/>t%?7 is the object of care the psychical life. Ver. 26. Faith in God's fatherly care for the nourishing of the body is awakened by a view of his procedure in nature. (Uereivd TOV ovpavov = tptown t^y. The general expression is, in Luke xii. 24, made special : KaTavoijoare TOVS Kopawa^.) Man stands con- nected with physical nature by his body, and may, therefore, trust himself to fatherly love in reference to that, as unreservedly as the birds of heaven. But since a divine principle of life reigns in his physical being, this bears him to a higher region of life. Ver. 27. The helplessness of the creature in all that is external is viewed in contrast with the fulness of the Creator's power, who daily nourishes all beings. Man cannot make a single blade grow, nay, he cannot make any physical change in himself. ('HAt/aa is primarily " size of body," " stature" [Luke xix. 3], then " age" [John 4 MATTHEW VI. 27-30. 327 ix. 21.]* To add a cubit to the stature would be something mon- strous in proportion to the body, which does not exceed three cubits in height. From the connexion, something small is intended here. Better, therefore, " to add a little to the age." The *care for eating and drinking the conditions of physical life is an agreement with this. Ver. 28. The same applies to raiment. (Kpivov = i?i, Song of Sol. ii. 1, lily. Nf/flw, neo, filum ducere.) Ver. 29. The forma- tions of nature exceed in beauty all the formations of art. Art, therefore, can only try to imitate nature a powerful motive to un- reserved confidence in the wondrous Framer of the universe, in whose kingdom the greatest and the least appear clothed in the most splendid dress. Ver. 30. If God thus cares for what is most perishable, how much more for the heirs of his eternal kingdom ! (In regions where wood is scarce, as generally in the East, the use of other substances, as grass and brushwood, for burning, is the natural result of cir- cumstances. 'O/UyoTuarof = FIJIAN ptaj?, Matth. viii. 26 ; xiv. 31 ; xvi. 8.) Ver. 32. Hence is deduced the prohibition of care for the physical necessities of life ; and that care is represented as rooted in heathenism, where, instead of the living God who knows (ver. 8), we meet with a blind fate (elfjtapfiEvr^ which compels man to be his own God. In ver. 33 and 34 the noble and freely expressed thought, that the believing child of God is not careful, is qualified in order to prevent the mistaken idea that the prohibition of care is to de- stroy all exertion foryearthly things. ZTfrelv, seek, is contrasted with fiepipvdv, be anxious, so that the latter signifies anxiously caring without God,f the former striving in faith in God and with God. (Luke, however [xii. 29], uses ^rjreiv as synonymous with nepifivdv,) tLp&rw, first, gives the first rank to striving for the kingdom of God, to which the striving for earthly things is subordinate. For God's fatherly care is manifested by the believer himself ; he does not ex- pect in a spirit of tempting God, to be supported on air. The " kingdom of God" is again to be taken in its large and indefinite sense, as comprehending what is external and internal (see note on Matth. iii. 2), as also the righteousness, which, though in itself an essential feature of the kingdom of God (Rom. xiv. 17), is yet here specially noticed, in order to indicate the nature of the kingdom of God, whether inwardly or outwardly manifested, and to guard * In use the reverse: primarily time of life, age, then stature. [K. f Luke (xii. 29) subjoins the admonition: HTJ /lETeupifrade, which word does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. In the Old Testament it is often found, as well as fttTEupof, and the derivatives, fie~eupia/n6f, ^erewpor^f, in the sense of being lofty, proud. (Psalm cxxxi. 1; Ezek. x. 16, 17; 2 Mace. v. 17 ; vii. 34.) In the sense of suspenso esse animo, " filled with hope and fear" a sense not uncommon in profane wri- ters it occurs only in this passage. The pefiawTTis of marif stands opposed to the fj.epLfj.va. * 328 MATTHEW VI. 34 ; VII. 1, 2. against false conceptions. The term TT p o s redi]aerai, shall be added, points to the divine as the immediate and proper object of all man's endeavours, with which temporal blessings are associated subordi- nately, and necessarily, if the endeavour after God be pure. Hence the exhortation closes with the words with which it began : ft?) fjiepifjivrlorjre, ver. 25. The words dq rrjv avpiov, for the morrow, do indeed seem to limit the universality of the exhortation, and to de- scribe the care for the present as well founded. But in the idea of care a reference to the future is always included, and the present appears as provided for, as is seen in the succeeding context ; con- sequently the requirement not to care, should be maintained to its full extent (see 1 Peter v. 7); but as was observed, without thereby excluding truly believing exertion. The words immediately follow- ing : f) yap avpiov fiepi^vrjaei rd iavrrjs, for the morrow will take thought, etc., confirm this view ; for in them God is represented as he who takes thought, since time itself, to which taking thought is ascribed, must be viewed in its dependence on him, by whom every need is supplied for every circumstance. Lastly, the Saviour notices that, even apart from lading himself with care for the future, the life of the believer in the present retains its burden be- cause of the sin of the world ; so that the taking no tliouglit urged upon us, cannot be exemption from suffering. (Kaitia is purposely used, as it expresses physical ills, but in their moral origin. 'Ap/cero^ occurs also Matth. x. 25 ; 1 Peter iv. 3.) As regards the critical state of the verse, the Codd. vary in the words : 77 yap avpiov fj^pifMv^aei rd t-at/rf/f, as some omit rd Eavrfjg ; others only rd ; while some give irepl tavrjjg or tavrq. The various readings do not alter the meaning essentially; but the usual construction of fieptpvdv is with the accusative ; we might, therefore, prefer Eavrfa as the less common. It is more important to notice a punctuation different from the ordinary one, which Fritzsche (comment, in Matth. p. 284), has adopted in the text : ufj ovv nepifivfjarjre elg rrjv avpiov rj ydp avpiov fjpi/j,vfjO'Ki. Td iavrfjg dpKerbv ry rjnepa rj Kaicia avrrjg, Be not anxious for the morrow; for the morrow will be anxious. What belongs to itself, its own evil, suffices for the day. 'H Kania avrrjs is then taken as in opposition with rd iavrjjg. This punctuation seems to me worthy of regard ; only the words : rj ydp avpiov nepipvijaKi, produce, perhaps, the impression of a defective construction ; the words subjoined give more completeness to the thought. The thought, however, is not essentially altered by this punctuation. Ver. 1, 2. [With decision in striving after the kingdom of God, and with strictness towards ourselves, we must combine mildness towards others. The way to righteousness consists not in discover- ing others' sins, but our own. He then who does this must feel MATTHEW VII. 2-6. 329 constrained to ask divine assistance (ver. 7-12.) To relations of union with God corresponds provident conduct towards men (v. 12 20). That Matthew (ch. vii.) has not arbitrarily put together un- connected matter is shewn by the parallel passage of Luke vi. 37, ff.] The thought is expressed more fully in Luke vi. 37, 38 ; there is something similar in Mark iv. 24. Kpivetv, icpipa, judge, judgment, is in Matthew evidently = KaraKpiveiv, KaraKpifj,a, condemn, etc., in which sense they occur, Kom. ii. 1 ; xiv. 3, 4 ; 1 Cor. v. 12, and frequently. This is seen from the parallel word, Karadiitd&tv, con- demn, used by Luke, which defines npiveiv, and from the contrast between drroiveiv and didovai in Luke vi. 37 ; the former of which expressions denotes " acquittal by the court" (absolvere reum;) the latter, the " remission of what might be legally demanded." Judg- ing, therefore, so far as it is testing, is not here forbidden ; that is always required by Scripture. (1 Thess. v. 21.) That state of mind is forbidden in which, forgetting his own sin, man condemns the sins of others, thus assuming the place of a holy G6d, and hence also judges falsely and perversely, rejecting the sinner with the sin. The phrase : " With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again," is equivalent to : " An eye for an eye," Matth. v. 38. The nature of overflowing, forgiving love, which prepares us in turn to receive forgiveness, is described by figure in Luke vi. 38. (MfcVpov nakbv = licavov, a just measure, not falsified; me&, to press together; oakevu, to shake and move to and fro, in order to force as much as possible into the measure ; ^nspocgitpquai = p-a;n, Joel ii. 24, the overflowing of the filled-up measure all in contrast to giving without love, which is done to avoid a direct violation of the law. KO/ITTO^ = p^h, sinus, the lap of the flowing dress for receiving any thing a figure frequent in the Old Testament. 'Avranodovvai d$ rov noXnov, Jer. xxxii. 18 ; Psalm Ixxix. 12, for " to recompense/') Ver. 3-5. The next verses carry out, in detail, the same thought which has just been viewed in its relation to the whole character. Uncharitableness sees the faults of others, while it overlooks its own ; pure love overlooks those of others, and watches sharply its own. The same figure is found in the tract Bdba Bathra: Cum diceret quis alicui, ejice festucam ex oculo tuo, respondit ille; ejice et tu trabem ex oculo tuo. To have a splinter in one's eye is conceivable ; to have a beam, not. But to have a beam in one's eye without ob- serving it, is certainly an image of the wildest self-delusion. Ver. 6. These exhortations to gentleness are followed very ap- propriately by the command to beware of the other extreme that is, an indiscriminate pouring out of holy things from want of judg- ment. He who forbids our judging (which decides man's culpabil- ity), commands us to form an opinion (Avhich marks only the state.} This latter is absolutely necessary for the child of God, in order to 330 MATTHEW VII. 6-12. distinguish the false from the true. (Kvve$, %oipoi, dogs, swine, denote the common natural condition, which shews itself in shame- lessness, carnality, and lust ; these things the Christian must know as such, and not bring what is holy into contact with them ;* for their internal condition does not admit of their receiving it, and it reacts destructively on himself. "A.yiov, iiapyapi-ai, holy, pearls, denote the holy doctrine of the kingdom of God. [Matth. xiii. 45.] For such men the law alone is fit ; the Gospel they misunderstand to the in- jury of those who proclaim it to them. In dog-like natures, holy things excite rage, and swinish natures tread them without thought into the mire, which is their element.) Ver. 7-12. Prayer for the Holy Ghost alone leads to the at- tainment of such a life of love as does not condemn, and yet care- fully judges. [Such prayer itself then marks the direct opposite of the dog-like dispositions which repel what is holy.] The general maxim : " Ask, and it shall be given you," repeated in different forms, is exemplified by a similitude, which reasons from the less to the greater. Ver. 8 proves ver. 7, from the general thought : " Every one that asketh, receiveth." The demonstrative force lies in the nature of him to whom the prayer is addressed. Every prayer which is really such that is, which flows from the inward necessity of the soul, God answers. The human relation between the father and the supplicating child forms an argument ad hominem. Luke (xi. 12) adds a third case : " Instead of an egg, a scorpion." Here, to the idea of what is useless is added that of something repulsive and frightful. The transition : /} rig eanv, gives emphasis to the opposition: "or does it ever happen otherwise?" In comparison with God, the eternal good, men, in their sinful alienation, appear as evil (Trovqpoi ) in the relation of parental love, kindness still man- ifests itself in the midst of sin, how much more in the eternal God! Luke (xi. 13) calls the gift, which includes all other gifts, expressly the TrvEvpa dyiov, Holy Spirit, who must be understood there as the creative principle of holiness in man. In this Spirit we exercise pure love. The maxim in ver. 12 is also based on proverbs current among the Jewish people. In the Talmud : " Quod exosum est tibi, alteri nefeceris," lohat is offensive to thee, do not to another, stands as one of Hillel's sayings. Love for ourselves should give the rule of our self-sacrificing love for our neighbour (Matth. xix. 19); only * Dogs (Kvvsf) denote elsewhere in the New Testament not the common state of na- ture, but obduracy and positive and fierce hatred of the Gospel (Phil iii. 2 ; 2 Pet. ii. 22 ; Rev. xxii. 15, comp. Ps. Ixxx. 14.) In like manner swine (comp. 2 Pet. ii. 22 with Ps. Ixxx. 14), is an image not of natural carnality, but of that gross and obstinate sluggishness which can make no use of what is holy but to defile it. To Mary Magdalene and a publican, the Gospel may and should be preached, but the Christian must be able to discriminate such characters from the dogs and the swine. For the latter the only fea- sible attempt to save is excommunication. [E. MATTHEW VII. 12-20. 331 God is to be loved above ourselves. Instead of ovrog ecmv 6 vofioc;, as Griesbach reads, Fritzsche would read ovrw^ ; but, apart from critical reasons, ovrog should be preferred on account of the deeper thought which it expresses, that in this command of love toward our neighbour, the essential import of the Old Testament is included. (Mark xii. 29, ff.; Matth. xxii. 40.) Ver. 13, 14. From what has been said, follows naturally the diffi- culty of a walk in self-denying love, being represented under the figure of a narrow path, which conducts through a narrow gate into the strong citadel of eternal life. The figure is so natural, so true, that it is repeated in every earnest attempt, even in subordinate stages of religious life. Cebetis tab. c. 12, ovtcovv 6pa$ dvpav nva [uicpav, Koi 666v rtva rrpb rift dvpag, r\~ri<; ov TTO^V 6%helTcu, d/lAa Travv dkiyoi TTOpevovrai, avrt] earlvrj ddbg^r/ ayovoa rrpbg rrjv dA??&V7?v naideiav. (The parallel passage, Luke xiii. 24, will subsequently receive a special explanation. For on, ver. 14, we should undoubtedly read ri ; it corresponds to the Hebrew ma.) Ver. 15-20. Yet is the way of the pure life in Grod not merely narrow in itself, it is rendered still more difficult by the teachings of false prophets. Here we are required to try the spirits. The fruits are assigned as the test. In 1 John iv. 1, 2, pure doctrine is mentioned as the criterion. Is this meant here, too, by the term fruits? I doubt it ; though Tholuck has defended that view with specious reasons. The doctrines stand first ; they might well be compared to the root, but not to the fruits. The fruits are neces- sarily of a moral nature. It is certainly difficult to distinguish between the real fruits, and the counterfeits of hypocrisy and fanaticism ; but the Saviour supposes in his people a simple sense of truth, that separates the true and the false with certainty. [Yet they include not merely the life of the individual, but the conse- quences of a system. A. school, sect, creed, that rejects the laws of Christian morality, and defends sin on theory, or that makes its theories an idol before which the ten commandments must bow down, proves itself radically false.] The sheep's clothing is, of course, not of the actual prophetic dress (Matth. iii. 4), but denotes figuratively, the outward show, in opposition to the true nature sayings and doings apparently full of love, which are the offspring of a selfish heart. The wolf's nature seeks its own, and soon betrays itself to the child-like sense. By the processes of the vegetable world, we are shewn how the fruit characterizes the nature of that which produces it. The figure is similar in James iii. 11. ("Atcavda, thorn-bush. Virg. Ed., iv. 29 : " Incultisne rubens pendebit sen- tibus uva ?" ["A/cavfla, nts, buck-thorn, with fruits like grapes but disagreeable. TpifioXog, -n-n, perhaps the Opuntien cactus (Indian fig-tree), which produces fruit similar to the fig, but worthless. And 382 MATTHEW VII. 20-23. as both deceive by their fruits, so still more by their splendid blos- soms, while that of the vine is unpretentious, that of the fig, hidden.] See Matth. xii. 33 for the same figure rather differently carried out, as also Luke vi. 45, which passage will be explained with the former. On ver. 19, 20, see note on Matth. iii. 10 ; Luke iii. 9. Ver. 21-23. These verses make a special application of what was observed of all false prophets generally, to those who are con- nected with Christ, among whom insincerity may creep in. Aeyeiv is opposed to noielVj as hoyog to epyov, or dvva^. (1 John iii. 18 ; Col. ii. 23 ; 1 Thess. i. 5 ; James i. 22.) To say Lord, Lord (Aeyetv Kvpie, ftvpie), signifies pretending to an attachment which is not felt in reality. According to ver. 22, the foundation of this devotion ap- pears to be spiritual vanity, which was nourished by the conspicuous exhibitions of the Spirit's power, which were imparted even to a Judas, along with his confession of Jesus as the Messiah. To prophesy to cast out devils to do Avonderful works, are the most common operations of spiritual power, which, in the time of Jesus, was so mightily exerted their nature we shall afterwards consider more precisely in their individual manifestations.* By the words : in thy name (ro5 o& dvopari), we must understand not merely a su- perstitious pronouncing of the name, as was the case with the sons of Sceva (Acts xix. 13, if.) ; but a receiving of the power of the Lord yet without true spirituality. (On ovo/m, see note on Luke i 49 ; and again on Matth. x. 41 ; xxviii. 19.) By the words : " in that day," the revealing of the hypocrisy, unperceived by human eyes, is postponed to the time of the general judgment, when every secret must be made manifest. (Bom. ii. 16.) Hypocrisy, therefore, ap- pears, here, as at the same time self-deception, in consequence of which a man persuades himself that he belongs to the Lord, till the discovery of the depths of the heart brings him to feel, that what he deemed his holy actions were a great violation of God's law (dvofj-ia), because his final aim in them was constantly his own, not God's glory. That we are not to conceive of any exchange of words on the day of judgment, is self-evident. The situation here so vividly portrayed is the language of fact; the unbeliever will stand beseeching, but will be refused. (The words : aTro^wpeire, . r. A., [depart, etcJ], are from Psalm vi. 8.) The solution of this psycholo- gical enigma the possibility of such self-deception, is contained in the words : I never knew you, ver. 22. TIVUOKEIV, know, like s?;, is used in the Scriptures in a deep spiritual sense, particularly in the phrases : " God, Christ knows man, the soul." (Deiit. xxxiv. 10 ; 1 Cor. viii. 3 ; xiii. 12 ; Gal. iv. 9.) Knowing God is connected with being known by God as the consequence ; no one can know, without being known of, God. If we connect' these expressions with * On these gifts, see the detailed remarks on 1 Cor. xii. and xiv. MATTHEW VII. 23-27. 333 the Christian doctrine of regeneration, the rich import of this con- trast is evolved. The genuine knowledge of God not a merely no- tional knowledge, but that essential knowledge which is eternal life itself (John xvii. 3) becomes possible only by a revelation of the hid- den God to the soul (see note on Matth. xi. 27) ; God's thus reveal- ing himself is a knowing of the soul (yivuafceiv rrjv ^VXTJV'), The figure of a bridal relation of the soul to God, which pervades the entire Scriptures, thus acquires its essential import ; the inward illumination of the soul is like a visit from the heavenly bridegroom, by whose agency, the knowledge of God results to the soul, accord- ing to the Old Testament expression : " In his light we see light," Psalm xxxvi. 9. Those who say, " Lord, Lord," are, therefore, un- regenerated men, who, with a false liberty, behave themselves as children of God, without having been begotten of him. The phrase : "whence ye are" (rrodev t-trre), in Luke xiii. 25, is therefore, very signifi- cant. It marks their foreign origin ; they are not from above, (avw0ev, John iii. 3) ; they are oatf EK rrjg oaptcog, flesh of the flesh (John iii. 6). In Luke xiii. 25-27, the elements of this passage are found in a different connexion, in which they will be considered hereafter. Ver. 24-27. The epilogue teaches the importance of applying a discourse like this, under the figure of a man who builds on a rocky foundation, and sets forth as the rock of salvation, the Word of eternal truth which was embodied in Christ's teaching. (Deut. xxxii. 15 ; Psalm xviii. 2 ; xiii. 9 ; Isa. xvii. 10.) Here the contrast is not between the bad man and the good, but between the fool and the wise man (as in Matth. xxv. 1) ; for all that hear are supposed to be well-intentioned ; but in many, spiritual prudence for their being spiritually benefitted was wanting. The similitude of build- ing is carried out in 1 Cor. iii. 9, ff., and there (ver. 11) Christ is called the foundation, on which the superstructure of the spiritual life must rest. In Luke vi. 48, the figure of laying a foundation is further carried out by digging deep. (Bpo%^, " heavy torrent of rain," tjtca. In Luke, Tr/L^^upa = njyyc&p{f is used, which means " the flowing tide," in contrast with aprwr^ or dvdppoia, the ebb. Here, where it is used in its more general sense, it denotes any over- flowing, desolating flood, from streams or rain storms. [To under- stand the comparison, imagine the rough, steep sides of the valleys, of that Jura formation prevalent in Palestine. A house built beside a torrent, on a rock, is unharmed by the swollen and sweeping flood. But if resting, though placed high above the stream, on a foundation of earth, the flood gradually wears away its base, till at length the under- mined and growing slide of earth reaches the house itself, and plunges' it into the flood.] Ver. 26. As a contrast to the building on the rocky foundation of the eternal Word of God, which defies all irmptations and dangers, there follows the figure of a baseless building on the 334 MATTHEW VII. 27-29 ; VIII. 1. sand, to denote the founding of the inward life on perishable human dogmas, opinions, and fancies. This building on the sand evidently refers to a spiritual work, which has some affinity with the genuine, regenerating work of the Spirit, but is destitute of the proper char- acter of that work. [He who has received the word of Christ into his ear only, builds on logical sand. He is not born again ; Christ the rock lives not in him ; and he is not on the rock. He, on the contrary, who does Christ's words, i. e., dies to the world (Matth. v. 3-12), receivesthe light from above (v. 13, ff.), understands in spirit, and strives to fulfil the law of God (v. 18-48), hence lives for God alone, not for his own advantage (vi. 1, ff.), and strives after eternal life (19-34), recognizes his own sinfulness (vii. 1, ff.), prays for the Holy Spirit (7), and follows Christ in the narrow way, not the mul- titude, nor the false prophets, (vii. 13, 15) ; he has built his spiritual edifice on Christ the Eock, and at Christ's second coming will stand.] Ver. 28, 29. The Evangelist concludes the whole with a refer- ence to v. 1. Matthew, in conclusion, notices only the impression which Christ's words made on the hearers. 'E/cTr/b/rreaftM is stronger than davpd&iv ; it expresses being inwardly affected. To this the words i&vaiav K%eiv** point, which distinguished the discourses of Jesus from those of the Pharisees ; the latter often uttered truths, but they were destitute of spiritual power ; their discourses were pictures drawn in the air, without essential power and vital energy. These were breathed forth in the words of Jesus, and by them he reached the depths of men's hearts ; wheresoever, therefore, any- thing in unison with the truth slumbered within, it could not fail to be awakened by such -a stimulus. 4. HEALING OF A LEPER. (Matth. viii. 1-4; Mark i. 40-45 ; Luke v. 12-16.) After this portraiture of Jesus as a teacher, Matthew proceeds to describe him as a worker, of miracles, since the next two chapters contain nothing but narratives of the Saviour's wonderful works. In as far as such actions are generally viewed as manifestations of mighty power, they are called in the Scriptures, 6vvdp.ei<; } ni-naa, mighty works. Kegarded in their connexion with the divine pur- poses in relation to individuals or the whole, they are called * Having authority. I think the specific reference here is to the tone of authority which Jesus assumed, and whicb marked him as a spiritual legislator. He spoke as him- self the sourrr- of knowledge, and the authoritative expounder of duty. With this, of course, st:?od intimately connected the vital power of the truths which he uttered. [K. MATTHEW VIII. 1. 335 signs. As events exciting astonishment or terror, they are called repara, Oavpdoia, Matth. xxi. 15 ; nteVsa, trn.sfa. The most appropri- ate name for them, when used of our Lord's miracles, is pya, works (a word found in Matth. xi. 2, and very frequently in the Gospel of John). In that name the miraculous character is, as it were, pointed out as the natural form of the Saviour's agency, since he, as pos- sessor of divine power, must necessarily produce supernatural phe- nomena by means of it. He himself was the wonder (repaf), his wonderful works were but the natural acts of his being. Hence it is evident that we cannot adopt that idea of a miracle, which re- gards it merely negatively as a suspension of the laws of nature. Starting from the scriptural view of the abiding presence of God in the world, we cannot regard the laws of nature as mechanical ar- rangements, which would have to be altered by interpositions from without : they have the character of being based, as a whole, in God's nature. [Yet it should be remembered that nature here has been disturbed by sin, and subjected to death, and hence differs from that of the higher regions of creation, heaven.] All pheno- mena, therefore, which are not explicable from the known or un- known laws of earthly development, are not for that reason neces- sarily violations of law and suspensions of the laws of nature ; rather, the,y are themselves comprehended under a higher general law, for what is divine is truly according to law. That which is not divine, is against nature ; the real miracle is natural, but in a higher sense. True, the cause of the miracle must not be sought within the sphere of created things ; it exists rather in the immediate act of God. All God's doings are, to the creature, miracles, although, viewed in relation to the divine essence, they are purely law and order. To the believer, therefore, what is apparently natural e. g., the preservation of the world the growth of all its products is miraculous, because he is accustomed to refer every thing to its first cause. No miracle is therefore performed without a real power. As we see human beings working miracles, extensively in the New Testament, we are taught the possibility of higher powers being im- parted to men, which act controllingly upon surrounding objects, whether nearer or more distant. Unless we admit the presence of such a real element of power the Spirit in his gifts (^apwTjwara, 1 Cor. xii. 10) there is absolutely no connecting link between the miracle and the worker of it, and it becomes mere juggling or witchcraft. We might, perhaps, regard animal magnetism as bearing a certain analogy to this higher principle of power ; but we must beware of con- founding that obscure, dangerous principle of sensuous life with the pure element of light, which wrought in the holy men of Scripture narrative. This is the essence of God in them ; the former power is of the creature, and defiled by sin. But that in later times spirit- 336 MATTHEW VIII. 1. ual power in the leaders of the church was not combined with mi- raculous gifts, results from the progress of the race, and the absence of those necessities, which called forth extraordinaiy x phenomena to meet the exigences of a critical period. It is a significant fact that the Scriptures assert not merely holy, but also evil,* power to be the cause of miracles. Two series of miracles extend throughout Scripture history. As the works of the Egyptian magicians stand opposed to the miracles of Moses (Exod. vii. fir.), so in the New Testament the miracles of antichrist stand opposed to those of the Saviour. (Matth. xxiv. 24 ; 2 Thess. ii. 9 ; Kev. xiii. 15.) This distinction between the divine and the satanic miracles suggests the idea, that it cannot possibly be the end of miracles to establish the truth of any affirmation. In the sense of Scripture, too, this is by no means the intention of miracles. It was only the people that so viewed them, because they allowed them- selves to be influenced in their judgment by the impression of power, or the excitement of the senses ; for which reason they attached themselves to false prophets as willingly, and even more so, than to the true. The Saviour, therefore, severely rebukes this eagerness for sensible miracles. (John iv. 48.) But when our Lord in other places (e. g., John x. 25 ; xiv. 10, 11) calls for faith in his works, and connects them with his dignity and his holy office, this is not done in order to establish the truth of his declarations ; truth, as such, rather proclaims itself irresistibly to impressible minds by its inward nature. (" Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice," John xviii. 37.) They are intended rather to demonstrate his character as a divine messenger , for those in whom the impression of the truth, conveyed by the spirit and language of the Saviour had wrought its effect. The proclamation of truths may be conceived, without the person who proclaims them bearing the character of a messenger from God. In such a case, the truths may predominate greatly both in word and power over what is erroneous ; but error cannot be conceived as utterly excluded in the case of any human teacher. God, therefore, invested particular individuals as his instruments with higher powers, in order to distinguish them from humanly ex- cellent teachers, and to accredit them before mankind as infallible instruments of the Holy Spirit as teachers of absolute truth. Hence the gift of miracles is one of the necessary characteristics of true prophets, and serves to witness their superior character to prove that they are to be regarded as leaders and guides of the peo- ple, and freed from all error. For this reason, faith that is, sus- ceptibility to divine operations is supposed in the case of miracles ; * In so far as evil in general is merely a product of created powers, we may say that the satanic miracles are merely apparent miracles ; since miracles can be performed by God'a omnipotence alone. MATTHEW VIII. 1. 337 and it is only the truth, combined with the testimony from miracles, that constitutes the character of a divine messenger ; by virtue of which, things may also be established as true and certain, which cannot be known to be such by an indwelling susceptibility to truth. The reverse relation obtains with the representatives of the kingdom of darkness, whom the Scriptures call false prophets, false Christs, because, notwithstanding a total inward diversity, they have an ex- ternal similarity to the true messengers of God. Though these re- presentatives of falsehood mix up much that is true in word and deed, and would fain appear as the messengers of the kingdom of light ; yet to the sincere soul, fitted to receive the truth, the entire spirit of their doings discovers itself as unholy, and therefore all the miracles conceivable fail to induce the soul to surrender itself to them : the very association of miraculous powers with an unholy spirit is rather a proof to such a soul of their close connexion with the kingdom of darkness. When, therefore, the Saviour condemns the thirst for miracles, he rebukes the regard to externals involved in it, which is a sign of dead ness to what is spiritual, and exposes to the danger of doing homage to the operations of evil, when they are conjoined with miraculous appearances. But, on the other hand, our Lord commends the desire for miracles, as a confirmation of the inward certainty, that he, whose truth and purity of action at first touched the soul, is more than a human teacher that he is a heavenly accredited messenger of God. Miraculous power then, and every separate manifestation of it, is in itself without meaning; all turns on its connexion with the general disposition of the person hi whom it is seen. The association of miracles with what is holy, is the sublime testimony of God to his servants ; the association of miracles with what is unholy, is a warning, meant to awaken horror at the emissaries of the pit ; the knowledge of what is holy and what, is unholy in itself, and in its true nature, is presupposed, in order to be capable of discriminating the nature of miracles ; and this knowledge depends on sincerity and purity of heart. The im- pure man persuades himself that God's true miracles might have been wrought by the evil spirit, and the false ones he regards as true ; the pure man views both in their true form, because he car- ries in himself the rule and criterion of truth. If now we glance at the history of miracles, we do not find any miracles wrought by the agency of men before the time of Moses ; for God's miracles, his revelations in the Son, and in angels, and so forth, are to be carefully distinguished from those in which mira- culous gifts are attached to a human being. It seems as if a ripe- ness of human nature were requisite, to fit it to serve as the vehicle of mighty spiritual energies. For this reason, Jesus wrought no miracles as a child ; and the apocryphal books of the New Testa- VOL. I. 22 338 MATTHEW VIII. 1. ment betray their senseless character in this, among other things, that they describe the child Jesus as working miracles. Again, after the time of Moses, we notice a difference between the miracles of the Old and New Testament. The miracles of the Old Test- ament bear not only a more colossal, but a more external, character. They are more calculated to move the inferior powers of the soul, particularly the imagination. The miracles of the New Testament are more spiritual. They display a more definite reference to the moral world. In particular, we find the Saviour, in his miraculous agency, following the principles maintained in the temptation. He never wrought miracles to amaze never for himself. The Father only wrought miracles in him for his disciples, either in a narrower sphere, as at the transfiguration, or in a wider one, as at the resur- rection, for the confirmation of their faith. In humble quiet, Jesus employed the fulness of divine power and life dwelling in him, to console the unhappy, and deliver them from the source of their sor- rows ; in this sense also to destroy the works of the devil, and to lay the foundations of the kindgdom of God ; since our Lord always knew how to apply outward help as a spiritual remedy. For the miraculous cures wrought by Jesus should be regarded as acts at once physical and moral, in which the fulness of divine life passed over to susceptible individuals, in order, along with the organic har- mony of the vital processes, to evince the possibility of a harmonious spiritual life. The cures effected by the Redeemer were also dis- tinguished from those of his disciples in this, that he performed them in his own name, by the perfection of his indwelling power. The disciples, on the other hand, wrought them only in the name of Jesus, by his power, as his instruments. Faith was, therefore, to them as much the medium of appropriating miraculous powers, as to others of being healed ; and, in this appropriation through faith, we find them in a state of gradual progression. (Matth. x. 1, 8 ; xvii. 19, ff.) For a time the gift of miracles continued after the removal of the apostles, till, after the complete establishment of the church, it gradually disappeared. But, together with the Holy Spirit, there still remained the inward miracles of regeneration, sanctification, hearing of prayer, which are greater than the out- ward ones. These outward miraculous gifts will not again appear till the last times, when the situation of the church shall render necessary the sending of new prophets. The view held by the Romish church of the necessity of an unbroken continuance miraculous gifts, results from a confounding of external and intern miracles. It is only the latter of which a church cannot be CO] ceived to be destitute ; for the God whose every act is a miracle, dwells in it. Matth. viii. 1. Of the first of the cures narrated by Matthew, MATTHEW VIII. 1, 2. 339 the chronological connexion is undetermined. (See Matth. viii. 1 / 5, compared with Luke v. 11, 16, 17.) Still as, according to Luke (vii. 1), Christ heals the centurion's servant at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount, as Matthew likewise relates (viii. 5, if.), the position given to this event by Matthew may he chronologically cor- rect, and the healing of the leper may have happened immediately after the Sermon on the Mount, on the road to Capernaum. (Luke [v. 12] says, EV fua rtiv -rroAewv.) The narrative begins with the ob- servation, that, immediately on the Saviour's descending from the mountain, crowds gathered around him. Among them a leper ap- proached. (Karaftaiveiv dnb TOV opovg refers to ver. 1. The construc- tion is remarkable for the repetition of avrw a construction which occurs in this same chapter, verses 5, 23, 28, and elsewhere in Mat- thew. The first avrw looks like a dative absolute with Karaftavri. From this feeling, the various reading na-aftavroq avrov may be ac- counted for as a correction for the less usual dative.) Yer. 2. The leprosy shewed itself in several forms some more dangerous, others milder. The regulations of Moses respecting the n^ leave no doubt on that point. (Lev. xiii. ; xiv,) The persons afflicted with the dangerous leprosy (see on the subject Winer's " Kealworterbuch," s. v.) were considered unclean according to the Mosaic law, and could not be received into the congregation again till their cure was ascertained. This leper, of whom Matthew tells us, might already have heard of Christ's cures, or have seen some of them. At any rate, he displays his faith in Christ by prostrating himself, and by the express petition for healing, which he supposes Jesus able to accomplish for him also. (The word irpooKvveiv = yovvTrer&v in Mark = -rreouv KTH npoouTrov in Luke, corresponds to the Hebrew svinnipn. It is the general form of expressing respect in the East, and has not in itself any religious reference.) But, with re- spect to the nature of the faith,* which we must suppose to exist in the persons cured in this as in all similar cases (see note on Matth. xiii. 58), we must first of all lay it down that -niart^, faith, viewed in its religious bearing, in every case retains one and the same fun- damental signification. This is modified only by the different ob- jects of faith, which again are determined by the different degrees of its development. Now we must not make the essence of faith to consist in knowledge either of the divine in general in the Old Test- ament, or of the divine in Christ in particular in the New. For such knowledge, whether confused or clear in its conception, may be united with a state of the soul, which is the opposite of believing. Faith is rather rooted in a spiritual susceptibility to the divine, which has its seat in the heart, icapdia (see Bom. x. 9, 10), while knowledge (yvwo/f) depends upon the susceptibility to the divine * See remarks on Rom. iii. 21. 840 MATTHEW VIII. 2, 3. in the understanding (vav<;). Faith is also capable of inward grada- tion, according to the degree in which the divine is revealed. Par- ticularly in the cures, where faith is made the negative requisite, which determines the ability to receive the Spirit's powers emanat- ing from Christ, the faith demanded or exercised is not the holding certain doctrinal positions, but a susceptibility, both spiritual and bodily, to the Saviour's agency. This was, doubtless, uniformly accompanied by the belief that Christ was the Messiah, and that, as Messiah, he could work miracles. But we might also conceive these ideas as existing apart from that fundamental disposition, which we have designated as susceptibility of the heart, and of the whole nature to the divine : and thus separated they would not satisfy any condition of miraculous healing.* This is the view sug- gested by the description of all the cures wrought by Jesus. In no case does he ask after definite doctrines as objects of faith. In no case does he mention them as a necessary quality of faith. The Saviour leaves the mere profession of faith to speak for its quality, because demeanour and language at once proclaimed the general disposition of the soul, as being either open or closed to divine in- fluences. Hence it is evident also, that the outward bodily healing was only a symbol of the inward spiritual healing which was pro- perly intended. (See note on John vii. 23.) For those same vital powers, which removed the bodily disorganization, exercised an in- fluence, in conformity with their nature, on the spiritual character of the person cured. They brought him into a real connexion with the world of good in general, and took possession of him on the position to which he had just attained, in order to raise him still higher. Ver. 3. At the sick man's request, our Lord lays his hand upon him, and heals him. In most cures wrought by Jesus there was a similar immediate touching ; and there can be no hesitation in ac- knowledging a conducting medium of healing power (only not a necessary one) in the putting forth of the hand, just as in blessing with the solemn laying on of hands (emOeaig T&V xeip&v). The analogy of animal magnetism suggests itself, and it is certainly not acci- dental ; only, as was hinted above, it must never be forgotten, that the power of Jesus Christ was divine, and magnetism, therefore, can be referred to, only to indicate a power presenting similar phe- nomena in an inferior region of existence. (Kadapi^eiv = nnta may signify " to pronounce clean," inasmuch as the priest who pro- nounced the diseased man clean, restored him to society from which he had been cut off. [See Lev. xiii. 13, 17, in the LXX. transla- * The profound mystic Gerhard Tersteegen calls faith, very appropriately, " the in- wardly hungering desire of the spirit, which lays hold of not only the form, but also the essence of what is divine." ( Weg der Wahrheit, S. 366.) MATTHEW VIII. 3, 4. 341 tion.] But that an actual and instantaneous removal of the disease is intended in this case, is evident from the words " immediately his leprosy departed from him" (evdeug dnriWev 77 Aerrpa) [Mark i. 42], which are explanatory of EKaOapiafh], was cleansed. In Mat- thew, too, the connecting of KKadapiaOr) with 27 Aerrpo avrov ) requires in the verb the idea of removing.) Ver. 4. All the narratives agree in recording, that the cure was followed by the command of our Lord to tell no one of the event. Similar prohibitions are often found in the Evangelical history. (See Matth. ix. 30 ; xii. 16 ; xvi. 20 ; xvii. 9 ; Mark iii. 12 ; v. 43 ; vii. 36 ; viii. 26, 30 ; ix. 9 ; Luke viii. 56 ; ix. 21.) The Saviour's reasons for them were of various kinds. Sometimes he, doubtless, meant, in that way, to guard against popular movements to make him the Messiah-king ; at others, to withdraw the people's atten- tion from the transactions, and prevent their rendering him external homage ; or, as Luther observes, to give an example of humility. But he may have often forbidden the announcement for the sake of those who were cured. If these persons were in danger of distrac- tion by outward occupation, it might be the intention of Jesus to lead them thus to try themselves, and to turn their attantion within. That this was sometimes his motive, is especially probable from the circumstance that we meet with instances of an opposite character, where our Lord encourages them to declare what God had done by him. (See Mark v. 19.) This appears to have been his practice towards those persons who, naturally reserved, and lost in undue self-contemplation, needed prompting to outward activity for the prosperity of their inward life. The circumstance last noticed affords a glance into the profound wisdom of our Lord as a teacher, who understood how to treat every one according to his wants. In the present case, it would seem from the account in Matthew, most suitable to look for the reason of the prohibition in the person cured, since the cure was wrought in the presence of many, and yet the command to tell nothing of it was directed to the leper alone. It is true, Mark had said nothing of the multitudes ; and from his representation, it is more probable that the command was intended to prevent popular tumults. His account is (i. 45), that the leper, notwithstanding the prohibition, published the miracle diligently, (nokkd often used in Mark e. g., iii. 12 ; v. 23 ; xv. 3 in the sense of " greatly," " zealously,") and that, by that means, such a commotion arose, " that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city" viz., without giving encouragement to the carnal hopes of the Messiah among the multitude. Perhaps Mark 1ms also sub- joined the words : nal t-jUjSptjUT/CTajuevo? avr& evOewg e^fta^ev avrov, and he straitly charged him, etc., to make the command more stringent. ('Eju/3ptjuao/u has here the meaning of " to command with solemnity 342 MATTHEW VIII. 4, 5. and emphasis/' as in Matth. ix. 30. 'Eic(3dkkeiv = Kiin. See Matth. ix. 25.) Not less important than this prohibition is the command to go to the priests and present the appointed offering. (See Lev. xiv. 2, ff.) This command not only displays a wise care to interfere, in no respect, with the theocratic institutions, but also a tender cautious- ness not to remove the subject of the cure from his moral position, but to confirm him in a faithful discharge of his obligations. We by no means find Jesus seeking to awaken in each subject of his healing power that deeper feeling which, through regeneration, should bring him into the life characteristic of the New Testament. He often leaves them, as in the case of John the Baptist, quietly to maintain their legal position (in which they had been called to per- fection), and seeks only to guide them to the true righteousness which even under the old dispensation involved repentance. All the Evangelists concur in specially subjoining the words : " for a testimony to them." They intimate that the command had refer- ence to the priests also that is, by pronouncing the leper clean they were to testify to the reality of the cure, and, at the same time, condemn their unbelief. (The antecedent lepel, must be taken col- lectively on account of the avroig, which follows. The word t>7ro%wp0), used in Luke v. 16, does not occur any where else, except in Luke ix. 10, with the meaning, clam me subduco.) 5. HEALING OF THE SERVANT OF A CENTURION. (Matth. viiL 5-13 ; Luke vii. 1-10.) This narrative is one of the gems among the many little epi- sodes, complete in themselves, with which the Evangelical history is adorned. It exhibits to us a pious heart in the most amiable childlike form, freely manifesting its life of faith without any doc- trinal tinge whatsoever. The centurion, probably in the Koman garrison at Capernaum, having grown up in heathenism, was, from residing among the Jews, favourably disposed towards the religion of the Old Testament. The miracles of the patriarchal times, of which he heard, he might often have longed after, without knowing that he was to see infinitely more than these. But his humility was as profound and sincere, as his faith was deep ; he esteemed him- self not worthy that the ruler over spiritual powers should enter his house. In this character he recognized Jesus ; but what precise view he entertained of him, it would be hard to determine, since it was, probably, as usually happens in childlike dispositions, unde- veloped, though in the main, correct. The Saviour makes no effort MATTHEW VIII. 4-6. 343 to extend his views : his desire is satisfied ; his faith in the gracious manifestation of divinity which had come near him, strength- ened ; and aid furnished toward perfection in his present views. With respect to the two accounts of Matthew and Luke, the latter undoubtedly possesses the superiority in point of vividness and ex- actness in external circumstances. Matthew gives greater promi- nence to that part (ver. 11, 12) in the address of Jesus, which refers to the Jews, whom the Evangelist everywhere chiefly regards. The circumstance that Luke makes the centurion send his friends to Jesus ; while, according to Matthew, he goes himself .to Jesus, can- not be regarded as a contradiction ; for the latter representation is nothing but a shorter mode of expression, since, in the words of his friends, his own faith was made evident to our Lord. The occur- rence mentioned in John iv. 46-53, Semler and others were inclined to regard as identical with this ; but L'dclce, and Tholuck have convincingly proved the opposite. As the narrative of a cure, this transaction is so far remarkable, that, in this case, Christ, without personal contact, merely by the magic power of his will (if I may use the expression), exercises an active power at a distance a fact which again has its analogies in magnetism.* On the circumstance of the centurion believing, while his servant is being healed, see note on Luke xvii. 14, ff. Ver. 5, 6. The locality of the occurrence is fully pointed out by both narrators. It took place as Christ was entering Capernaum. Matthew makes the centurion present the request for his sick ser- vant in his own person. According to Luke, he presented it through the intervention of others viz., the presidents of the syn- agogue, to the erection of which he had contributed. This fact shews that the Koman warrior had been subdued by the power of the truth as exhibited in the Old Testament form, and had united himself to the synagogue as one who feared Grod (oepofjievos rbv 0ew), probably only as a proselyte of the gate. As a heathen, the centurion might not dare to approach the Messiah at all, and would, therefore, seek his interposition through those representatives of the Old Covenant with whom he was intimate. (Half = dovkog, Luke vii. 2, just as "i?3 =15?. He was afflicted with paralysis [rrapaAim;6f], which is generally understood to imply a partial affec- tion only ; but as it had brought the sick man near to death [f/^AAe reAevrav, Luke vii. 2], the term is probably used for apoplexy. The Jewish elders made use of the centurion's attachment towards the Jews as a motive to induce Christ, in whom they supposed the * There seems not the slightest necessity for these repeated, and to us offensive allu- sions to magnetism in connexion with the miracles of our Lord. Assuredly, it is not strange that l^o who controls all agencies, and works directly and indirectly throughout nature, should have wrought with a like variety of ways upon earth. In all cases the miracle was the immediate act of omnipotence. [K. 344 MATTHEW VIII. 6-10. power of healing to exist, to exercise it in this case. Some Codd. read Trapefy for Tropefet, which, form besides in this passage, is found also in Luke xxii. 42 ; Matth. xxvii. 4 ; John xi. 40.) Ver. 7, 8. After Christ had expressed his willingness, and as he was approaching the centurion's house (ov naicpav d-rc^ovrof duo TT/S- oliciag, Luke vii. 6), the latter according to Luke's more circum- stantial account, sent some friends to meet him to prevent him from giving himself personal trouble. (SKV/UW occurs also in Luke viii. 49 ; Mark v. 35, always with the meaning, " to trouble," " to put to inconvenience/') The idea that the personal presence of the Saviour was not necessary for the healing of his servant, which he so much desired, but that the Saviour, as the Lord of spiritual powers, could help with a word (Aoyw), is the expression of a faith both bold and free from the dominion of sense. But in the wish that Jesus should not come under his roof, various emotions are involved. In the first place, it is certainly an expression of the deepest hu- mility, which does not esteem itself worthy of a visit from a hea- venly guest (ovde i^iavrbv fjtjiGioa trpog GE eWelv, Luke vii. 7 j OVK elfu licavog, compare Matth. iii. 11.) Further, this humility may have been combined with fear of the presence of what is holy, as involv- ing danger to what is unholy. (See note on Luke v. 8.) Ver. 9. The reasons assigned by the centurion for thinking that the Saviour need not trouble himself personally to come to the sick man, illustrate most clearly his views of Jesus. He com- pared Christ's relation to the world of spirits with his own military position. He derived thence, notwithstanding his subordi- nate rank (elfu vnb et-ovoiav raaoonevog^ absolute command over his inferiors. In like manner he imagined Christ commanding in the world of spiritual powers. Whether he conceived of Christ specially as Lord of the angelic host, cannot be determined. In any case his conceptions were probably dim. Heathenish notions about sons of God (as in the case of the centurion at the cross, Matth. xxvii. 54) may have been blended in his mind with views which he had heard expressed concerning the Messiah. Notwithstanding this indefinite- ness in his conceptions, he possessed in his heart a deep religious life, which excited the astonishment of the Son of God himself. Ver. 10. The Saviour's wondering (Oavpd&iv) at the humble faith of the centurion (see note on Matth. xv. 21, ff., respecting the Canaanitish woman) points to a peculiar relation between divine and human judgments, intimated even in the Old Testament (Gen. xxxii. 24, sq.) While what is lofty in man is abomination to the Lord, the lowly find favour before him, so that he, the lofty One, dwells in the depths with the lowly, Psalm xxxiv. 18. The Saviour here employs the manifestation by a heathen of that state of soul, which is the essential condition of God's dwelling in humanity, to MATTHEW VIII. 10-12. 345 arouse in his Jewish companions a sense of their proper destination. Israel was called not only from its own bosom to give birth to the Saviour, but also to preserve a perfect susceptibility to his in- fluences ; and by means of these first to build up the kingdom of God among themselves. Jesus here censures the want of that spiritual susceptibility, and hints at the mystery of the transfer of the Gospel to the heathen, intimations of which even the Old Tes- tament contains (Isa. xix. 21, 22 ; Ivi. 6, 7 ; Psalm Ixxxvii. 4, ff.), without, however, connecting the diffusion of the knowledge of the true God to the heathen with the rejection of Israel. Ver. 11, 12. The pious centurion appears in the sequel as the representative of those heathens in general, who, by their deep longing for what is divine, surpass the Jews, who clung with the stiffness of death to mere form. Such spiritual members of Israel (Rom. ii. 14, 15 ; xi. 17 ff.) are conceived as scattered among all people and regions, but in Christ gathered together and united in the kingdom of God. John x. 16. (East and west, ('Avarokai, (Sixr/jot), to which in the parallel passage [Luke xiii. 29] north and south (flopp&g, vorog) are added, denote all the dimensions of the earth's extent, according to the sensible impression implying the whole of it. See Isa. xliii. 6.) The Jews, as children of the king- dom, are contrasted with the heathen, so that the latter are viewed only in a more general relation to the divine kingdom. (In like man- ner, Rom. ix. 25 : /ca/lecrw rbv o v /L a 6 v jiov, Aadv \iov Kal rr^v OVK jJyaTTT/^evT/v, fjya-mifiEvrjv, after Hos. ii. 23.) The abuse of their privi- leges on the part of the Jews, caused this relation to be exactly re- versed. The privileges in which the Jews trusted, became the possession of the believing heathen ; the punishment they desired for the heathen fell on their own heads. These privileges are comprised in the phrase : dvanXiveoOai ev ry flamteia, recline at table; only we are not at all warranted in regarding the expression as an empty image of happiness. Jesus was addressing Jews, who had adopted into their Messianic conceptions the idea of a social meal, as a general expression of being and living together with the risen saints of old, as the representatives of whom, " Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" (and in Luke xiii. 28, " all the prophets"), are men- tioned. See Sertholdt, Christol. jud., p. 196, seq.) Passages in the Old Testament (such as Isa. xxv. 6) might have contributed to the formation of this notion. Accordingly, the readiest supposition would be to regard the expressions in this passage as accommodated to the Jewish conception of the opening of the kingdom of God with a banquet, if we could persuade ourselves to incorporate into our idea of the Saviour, such a trait as an accommodation to the popular superstition which he came to destroy.* Moreover, as this * There seems no more difficulty in supposing our Saviour to avail himself by way of 346 MATTHEW VIII. 11, 12. particular feature appears elsewhere in the New Testament (see Luke xiv. 14, 15 ; Rev. xix. 9), another interpretation offers itself, less at variance with the general teachings of Scripture respecting the con- summation of all things, and with our idea of the Saviour. For through the whole New Testament extends the doctrine of the restoration of our sin-defiled world (a doctrine acknowledged in other passages, as Rom. viii. 19, ff., by many interpreters, who re- ject it in the present) and stands intimately connected with the resurrection of the body, presented in 1 Cor. xv., as a real restora- tion, not indeed of the corruptible body of death, but of that incorruptible one, which has grown up from its elements. To this restoration of the paradisaical condition of the earth, in which the acme of Christ's power to overcome the power of sin will be mani- fested, the present passage refers, so that the kingdom is here the state of righteousness, outwardly and visibly attaining to power. The commencement of that state, combined with the resurrection of the Old Testament saints, is conceived as being celebrated by the Saviour visibly presenting himself in company with his people at a new covenant-banquet. As the Saviour, when about to depart, was united with his disciples for the last time at the Lord's Supper, so in the kingdom of God he will (according to Matth. xxvi. 29) again gather them, as the great family of God, at the supper of the Lamb. (Rev. xix. 9.) Hence the Jews' fundamental idea of a feast in the kingdom of God is undoubtedly correct, and likewise expressed in Christ's words in the New Testament, only that their carnal sense had, on the one hand, given it a gross material form, and on the other, viewed it isolated and without its spiritual condi- tions.* An external participation in the kingdom of God, realized outwardly and visibly, necessarily presupposes its inward spiritual establishment. Not less erroneous than this Jewish materialism is Gnostic ideal- ism, which, in the place of a real resurrection of the body, which necessarily implies a glorified world, teaches a so-called pure life of the spirit, known, indeed, to Scripture, but only to be condemned as a worthless conception. (2 Tim. ii. 18.) The Bible teaches that the soul necessarily needs an organ ; and that, consequently, the mere allusion, of such a popular notion in regard to the kingdom of heaven, for the pur- pose of teaching an important truth, than in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, to employ prevalent conceptions respecting the localities of the invisible world. In neither case does he endorse the view, for in both it is merely incidental. [K. * On account of such aberrations, Chiliasm has been condemned by the Church ever since the third century. But that the fundamental ideas of that system, apart from their materialized form, have their root in the Scriptures, has been acknowledged by many ex- positors in recent times, though with the intention of deriving arguments against the Bible. These fundamental ideas are ho other than victory of good over evil, even in outward things, and restoration of the original harmony in the visible creation also. MATTHEW VIII. 12, 13 ; LUKE VII. 11. 34T state after the dissolution of this terrestrial body till the resurrection is an imperfect, intermediate state. With the resurrection, the kingdom commences in its complete form, and to this the passage before us points. While, then, the heathen are represented as being received into the kingdom, the Jews appear as excluded from it. (*Ew points to an &TW, since the kingdom is conceived as a limited region of ex- istence into which nothing extraneous can make its way. On this point, see Matth. xxv. 10. Light is viewed as the element of the kingdom, to which darkness forms the contrast. In the epithet S&repov, ivithout, the idea of distance from the element of life and joy is expressed. (Wisdom of Solomon xvii. 21 ; xviii. 1.) The weeping and gnashing of teeth in the kingdom of darkness, is parallel with the happy enjoyment of the feast in the kingdom of G-od, and its expression of the most exquisite sense of pain, arising from a consciousness of having missed the end of life, is the eternal truth. Moreover, as the kingdom is here in itself not strictly identical with eternal happiness, so neither is the " weeping and gnashing of teeth" identical with eternal punishment ; but as the nearer and lesser events frequently symbolize remoter and higher ones of kin- dred character, so here these two contrasted states may justly be considered as pointing forward to the final judgment. We can only regard the state of suffering in Sheol (a fuller discussion of which is found in note on Luke xvi. 24), which the Scripture distinguishes from Gehenna, as the immediate- reference in the " weeping and gnashing of teeth." That every possibility of return is not here to be denied to the rejected Israelites, is indicated, above all, by Horn, xi. 26, where the promise of salvation is given to all Israel. Ver. 13. In conclusion, both historians then relate that the Saviour, overcome by the bold faith of the warrior, immediately healed the sick man. ('E/caTovTap;^ is another form for eKarovrap^og, the one used in ver. 1. "Yyiaivu, Luke vii. 10, means " to be well " so that, according to his narrative also, the cure appears to have been wrought suddenly.) 6. KAISING OF THE YOUNG MAN AT NAIN. (Luke vii. 11-17.) This transaction, which Luke alone mentions, is distinctly con- nected with the foregoing context by the words iv ry t^g, on the next day, ver. 11 ; we, therefore, proceed here with this paragraph, and the more so, because verses 16, 17, where we read of the fame of Jesus beginning to extend, assign it plainly to the earlier period. 348 LtiKB VII. 11. As to the general fact of a raising from the dead, it is difficult of apprehension, on account of the uncertainty of the fact of death, and of its nature. For the separation of the soul from the body is not to be viewed as absolute, even where corruption is evidently going forward, because then the resurrection of the body (as de- scribed 1 Cor. xv.) would be impossible, and, at most, it could only be called a new creation. But if there remains, even in death, a bond between the higher vital principle and the elements of the body to be raised, and if medical men confess, that, even on grounds of ordinary experience, the determining of the actual occurrence of death is, in the highest degree, difficult, then no other assurance againt the supposition of a trance in this and the other cases of rais- ing from the dead recorded in the New Testament is possible, than that which is afforded by the word of Christ and the apostles. Where death is really in appearance only, as in the case of the daughter of Jairus (Matth. ix. 24), the mouth of truth expressly declared it, though she was thought by all to be dead ; but, where death is actually present, it declares the fact with equal plainness- What the short-sighted eye of man can perceive but imperfectly, the Lord of the world of spirits saw with indubitable certainty. The reality of his miraculous raisings from the dead rests upon his personal veracity. But,, at the same time, the view of death just given renders it easier to picture to ourselves the awakening. For, as at the resurrection it will take place in all through the Saviour's life-giving power ; so, in the individual awakenings, he revived activity in the organ that was dead, but not destroyed ; so that the soul (V^A??) which had escaped might again make use of it. Hence every raising from the dead is, so to speak, a full restoration of the entire relation between soul and body, which had been inter- rupted ; while, in partial restorations, it is the removal of only the disturbance in this or that function, with which the organism of soul and body was affected. But the same heavenly power, which is the life itself (John i. 4), effects the latter as well as the former. As the source of all individualized life, it can just as well recal to its organ that which had departed, and restore to harmony what was disordered, as create what did not exist. On questions such as these where the departed soul of the person raised up dwelt in the meantime, and whether, in the meanwhile, it had consciousness or not the Scriptures, for wise reasons, give no information ; and it is sufficient for us to know, that, in this respect, as in general, the state of the dying influences their future condition. But it is all the more important to conceive of the raising up of the dead as not unconnected with what is moral. The corporeal resurrection was to be a means of spiritual vivification, not merely for the relatives and for all who saw or heard of the event, but particularly for the person LUKE VII. 10-16. 349 who was himself raised up.* So extraordinary an event could not hut affect his inward life decisively, and render the man so raised up a living witness to our Lord's miraculous power.f Ver. 11, 12. The town where Jesus restored the son to his af- flicted mother, was called Nain (perhaps from trss, pleasant}, a small town of Galilee not far from Capernaum. (On licavog and irofaug, see Matth. viii. 30, compared with Luke viii. 32.) As he approached the town gate (rrvhrf), the Saviour saw a dead person carried out ; it was the only son of a widow. (MovoyevTfc, as in Luke viii. 42 ; ix. 38 ; Heb. xi. 17, in the sense of " only." But in the idea of " only," as in the Hebrew Th;, there is included also that of "dear," "valued.") Ver. 13, 14. Sympathy for the mother (on o/3o TOT) Gew). Penetrated by the holiness of Christ's work, they rightly conclude that such holiness, united to such power, indicated a definite mission of Christ from a higher world. They view the miracle, entirely in accordance with its pur- pose, as an evidence of his prophetic dignity. (The expression : ,' a great prophet, refers to the greatness of the mira- * Strauss thinks a reference to the persona raised up improbable (B. ii. S. 147, second ed.), because it is not anywhere specially noticed. But this reference did not need to be particularly mentioned, because it was a matter of course. Jesus always wrought for the salvation of men, in every word, and in his most casual intercourse with them ; how much more, then, in an awakening from the dead I f According to John xi. 41, 42, Lazarus was raised for the glory of God ; but that does not exclude a view to his own perfecting by his death and resurrection : it includes it ; for a vivification of the whole man is precisely the highest glory of God. 350 LUKE VII. 16, IT ; MATTHEW VIII. 14, 15. cle ; raising from the dead was peculiar to the chiefs of the pro- phetic order. On emoKKTTTeodai, see Luke i. 68.) Ver. 17. By individual flashes of his divine power like this, darting hither and thither, the Saviour aroused in the whole nation the consciousness that great things were before them. From the ardent anticipation connected with that consciousness, there arose a deep sense of misery and present need, and a confident courage for the future spiritual elements which our Saviour understood how to guide and to employ for his holy purposes. 7. HEALING OF PETER'S MOTHER-IN-LAW. (Matth. viii. 14-17 ; Mark L 29-34; Luke iv. 31-41.) After having narrated (Luke iv. 31-37) the history of the cure of a demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum, which, as it contains nothing peculiar, we passed over, referring the reader to Matth. viii. 28, ff., Luke immediately subjoins the healing of Peter's mother-in- law with the words : dvaardg IK rift ovvayuyrig. Mark also (i. 29) introduces this narrative with the same words, while Matthew con- nects it loosely with the account of the cure of the centurion's ser- vant. It is surprising that Luke here mentions Simon Peter as a well-known person, without having previously named him ; this fact might be accounted for on the ground of Luke's being entitled to suppose Peter known to Theophilus. Still it can hardly be denied, that this circumstance also strongly favours the view, that Luke in- corporated memoirs into his Gospel ; and as Peter was mentioned in them, Luke also named him, without noticing that no allusion had been yet made to his connexion with Jesus. Matthew and Mark had already prefixed a short mention of Peter, Matth. iv. 18, ff. ; Mark i. 16, ff. The fact itself contains nothing particular ; the general observations on the cures wrought by Jesus are applicable to this case also. (See note on Matth. viii. 1.) Ver. 14, 15. The mention of Peter's mother-in-law (TrevOepa), implies that that apostle was married. According to 1 Cor. ix. 5, Peter did not forsake his wife in the exercise of his apostolical call- ing, but had her to accompany him in his missionary journeys. (To attempt to explain the form of the disease from Luke's expression : TTvpero) jweyaAw avve%eo6ai, cannot but be unsatisfactory.) In this case, our Lord again wrought by immediate contact (f/i/>a~o rij$ xeipog), and restored her so perfectly that she was at once able to employ herself. The dtaicoveiv avrolg, ministering to them, must be viewed only as the result of the cure ; its proper intention we must in this case also regard as a moral one. MATTHEW VIII. 16, 17. 351 Ver. 16. The news of the miraculous cures wrought by Jesus, attracted multitudes to him, supplicating help. They came after sunset, because the heat of day would have been oppressive to the sick. The Saviour, surrounded by crowds of such unfortunate indi- viduals, who were bowed down by bodily pains, presents, in the healing agency by which he relieves external necessities, an emblem of the spiritual agency which he incessantly exercises within the hearts of men by the power of his salvation. Only we must sup- pose, that, even in the corporeal deliverance which he granted, he would constantly lead their minds beyond the crowd of earthly wants, to the malady of the soul and its cure. On the 6aifj.ovt%6fj.evot) demoniacs, as well as on his forbidding the demons to speak of him (Mark i. 34 ; Luke iv. 41), see more fully hi note on Matth. viii. 28, ff. Ver. 17. Matthew, who, as writing for Jews, takes pains to con- nect the phenomena in the life of Jesus with the Old Testament de- lineations of the Messiah, here quotes Isa. liii. 4, with the formula so familiar to him, OTTW^ Trkrjpudq. (See note on Matth. i. 22.) The Evangelist, moreover, again departs from the text of the LXX., who thus translate the Hebrew text : OVTO$ Ta$ dfiapria^ i}\i&v Qepei, KOL -Tre.pl Tjfi&v ddvvarat, in which form the words were altogether un- suitable for his purpose. He follows the original precisely, and translates ^h by dadeveta, and a'N5 by voaog ; the verbs KS and V^o, used by the prophet, Matthew renders by kapftdveiv and fiaord&iv. This independent treatment of the quotations from the Old Testa- ment forbids us to regard the Greek text of Matthew in the light of an ordinary translation i. e., one in which the translator does not allow himself any free action. But the bringing forward of just this passage does not seem agreeable to the purpose designed by the con- text, particularly as in 1 Peter ii. 24, the same passage is explained of the vicarious satisfaction of our Saviour, and the whole 53d chap- ter of Isaiah is a description of the Messiah as suffering for sinful mankind. But the apparent difference in the explanation of the same passage by two writers in the New Testament disappears, if we keep in view, that physical sufferings (as the acme of which we are to regard death, see Eom. vi. 23) are only the other aspect of the consequences of sin. The Saviour, who was called to restore the original state of mankind, removed external suffering no less than internal ; and, indeed, ordinarily, the former first, because deliver- ance from it is wont to be a means of arousing a desire for deliver- ance from the miseries of the soul, and quickening the faith in the possibility of that deliverance. The referring of Christ's saving efficacy to bodily sufferings no more excludes the extending of it to spiritual sufferings, than, on the other hand, the referring of it to spiritual sufferings excludes its extension to such as are bodily. The 352 MATTHEW VIII. 17 ; LUKE IV. 42. whole man is the object of salvation, body as well as soul. The only point of difficulty is, that Jiapfidveiv, taking, and fiaord&iv, bearing, are used of Christ's relation to the infirmities and diseases, as well as of his relation to the inward sufferings of humanity. (See John i. 29, where our Lord is called, dpvbg rov Qeov 6 alpuv rr\v d^a^riav TOV noa- juou, the lamb of God that taketh away, etc.) It would seem that the exercise of healing energy was by no means any thing so difficult and productive of suffering, as that Paard&iv, bear, would be an appro- priate term to apply to it. Hence we are tempted to interpret /la/i- pdveiv, take, and fiaard&iv, bear, as simply = dfyaiQeiv, take away, which, however, is not at all in accordance with the context of the passage Isa. liii., where the Saviour appears in the character of a sufferer. This difficulty is solved, however, if we conceive the healing energy of the Saviour more in its essential character. Viewing the Saviour, as we must, as truly human, as well as truly divine, we cannot but think, that the healing energy of our Lord consisted in a pouring and breathing forth of his vital fulness that, moreover, his whole soul entered, with heartfelt sympathy, into the necessities of the sufferers that he really suffered with them. As, therefore, physical exertion produced physical weariness (John iv. 6), so also spiritual exertion would exhaust him spiritually. Hence we may say, that in respect to infirmities and diseases also, Jesus laboured in his soul, and bore the sin of the world. 8. PETER'S DRAUGHT OF FISHES. (Lukeiv. 42-44; [Mark i. 35-39;] Luke v. 1-11.) The idea just suggested receives confirmation from the succeed- ing verses in Luke and Mark. For early next morning the Saviour retired into solitude (elg epj^ov TOTTOV) for prayer. Mark uses vvv%ov instead of the more usual expression fyepag yevopevrjg in Luke, for which some Codd. read Kvvv^a, occurs only in this pas- sage. We are frequently told that Jesus spent the night in silent prayer. (See Luke v. 16 ; vi. 12 ; ix. 28.) We must believe that this retirement for solitary prayer proceeded from a real necessity, unless our Lord is believed to have done something unmeaning, or merely apparent which would favour Docetic notions. According to the Scriptures, Jesus was in all things (KCLTO, -navrd) like men, ex- cepting sin, that he might be merciful (t-Ae^wv, Heb. ii. 17). And it is in just this view of our Lord that rich consolation is afforded, and the possibility is provided of taking Christ for our example. Regarded in his character as man, the prayers of Jesus (which must, indeed, be conceived as uninterrupted, agreeably to his own com- LUKE IV. 42, 43 ; V. 1. 353 mand to us [Luke xviii. 1], but still as having their points of eleva- tion in peculiarly consecrated moments) were, so to speak, seasons of heavenly refreshment and strengthening from above, in order to overcome the power of darkness that incessantly assailed him. But, at the same time, these moments of prayer are to be viewed as sea- sons when the Saviour was absorbed in the contemplation of the high purposes of the Father with him, and in the depths of divine love, in order to consecrate himself more and more to the comple- tion of his work. Yer. 43. The people, however, touched with the impression which the demeanour of Jesus produced, hastened after him into the wilderness ; and Peter, always the most active among the apostles, goes to Jesus to inform him that the multitude was seeking for him. But our Lord withdraws, with the observation, that he must extend his ministry over the whole of Israel. The ministry of the Saviour, according to its entire plan, was not intended to be exercised con- tinually in the same place, but to arouse from its death slumber the mass of the nation. Hence he never stayed long in a place, but journeyed hither and thither. Meantime he limited his more special oversight of souls to the narrower and wider circles of his disciples, who so yielded themselves to his sanctifying influence, that they forsook all came out from their previous connexions, and followed him. (Mark [i. 38] uses the expression i%6[tvai KWjuoTrd/le^, which occurs only in this passage. By /fw/ioiroAe^, he means villages of some size, approaching towns in extent. The participle %6- fievo^ is to be taken as in %tepa exopevr] [Luke xiii. 33 ; Acts xiii. 44], in the sense of " near," " neighbouring." The words in Mark : d$ TOVTO t&hTJkvOa, for this have I come forth, which corresponds to Luke's expression : el$ TOVTO ditioTatyai, for this am I sent, are also remarkable. It is true, there is the various reading in Mark, ihrj- Xvda, which, as being the more common phrase [Zpxwdai sc. d^Tov noa- , must be regarded as inferior in value to the less common. 'E|ep- i, come forth, refers to the formula used by John : K&pxeodat IK TOV Qeov, in TOV rrarpof, come forth from God, from the Father, with which K T&V ovoav&v would be synonymous. [See John viii. 42 ; xiii. 3 ; xvi. 27, 28 ; xvii. 8.] In ZfrXifavda, have come forth, a dis- tinct reference is implied to the original relation of the Son to the Father ; while d-e<7raA/M, have been sent, refers only to the appear- ance of Jesus as determined by God.) Luke v. 1. With an indefinite transition, the narrative of Peter's draught of fishes is appended ; for the multitude, whose in- convenient proximity is here spoken of (K-mnEioBai, to crowd, to press upon, a sign of eagerness indeed, but still an annoyance to Jesus), is not the same as that mentioned in ver. 42, because the clause inter- posed, he was preaching in the synagogues, etc. (j]v nrjpvoauv h> VOL. I. 23 354 LUKE V. 1-5. rift Fa/U/lazf), resumes the indefinite character. It is, therefore, uncertain whether this narrative should be connected im- mediately with the preceding. With respect to the narrative itself of Peter's draught of fishes, it has been already remarked, in the note on Matth iv. 18, that in the mere outline there given of the calling of Peter (on which event John alone sheds adequate light), the mention of the circumstance, that Peter was called to become a fisher of men, was introduced into the picture merely as an individual feature, without our being able to maintain that this expression of our Lord's was uttered im- mediately at his first meeting with Peter. Luke details here more circumstantially the occurrence, in connection with which our Lord designated Peter a fisher of men ; but he takes for granted that Jesus had, on a former occasion, become acquainted with Peter, and only shews how, on this occasion, the exalted greatness of Jesus opened upon him with unsuspected splendour, and thus powerfully attached him to his person. (The Lake of Gennesaret, on the shore of which Christ here appears as teaching, derives its name from the district Tevvrjodp. Josephus says [B. J. iii. 10, 7] : 'H 6e "ki\ivr] Tev- vTjodp d-nb TTJS 7rpooe%ov(; %wpaf Katelrai. The lake is also called QdXaa- aa -r/fc ra/UA&, IDJIS, i&'isa [See Winer's " Realworterbuch," s. v.~\ The extent of the lake is given by Jose- phus (ut sup.) as 120 stadia in length, and 40 in breadth. Ver. 2, 3. The pressure of the people caused Jesus to leave the land and enter one of the boats. This was drawn up on land, as was usually the case with small vessels ; Jesus desired Peter, to whom the boat belonged, to push it off from the land into deep water (a-nrd rr^q yr\<; Kiravayayelv), and then taught from the ship, un- molested by the crowding of the multitude. This setting of the boat afloat is to be distinguished from the bringing it out into the midst of the sea (eTravayayav elg TO ftddog = altum., ver. 4), which was done for the purpose of fishing. Yer. 4, 5. After his discourse was finished; and the people, con- sequently, dismissed, our Lord orders Peter to cast out the net for a draught. (Xa/law, properly "to slacken," " let go" e. g., a bow, then " to sink," " let down.") Peter, disheartened by a whole night's unsuccessful toil a circumstance which shews, that at that time the Apostles still pursued their business, at times at least complies, more out of deference to the dignity of Jesus, than from faith in a successful result. (Luke alone uses 'Emo-dr^, Master. See viii. 24, 45 ; ix. 33, 49 ; xvii. 13. He calls Jesus by that name instead of the Hebrew " Rabbi," which he could not assume, as LUKE V. 5-10. 355 being known to his Greek readers. But lie uses diddoicakos , teacher, for it also e. g. } vii. 40.) Ver. 6, 7. Peter complies with the Saviour's desire, and they enclose a multitude of fishes in their net, so that it broke, and their companions were obliged to bring the other boat along-side, in order to take in the abundance bestowed. (Bv6ifro6at occurs only in this passage with the signification of " sinking deeper," " sinking." The word is used figuratively in 1 Tim. vl 9.) According to the conception of the historian, the abundant pro- duce of this draught, which forms a contrast with the unsuccessful fishing through the night, when Peter toiled alone, are to be viewed as the result of Christ's presence, and the effect of his power. Christ is, therefore, here set forth as the Sovereign of nature, who, by the secret magic of his will, had power to direct even what is unconscious, according to his purposes ; just as the same power of the unsearchable God, who governs the universe, year by year con- ducts the fish of the sea and the birds of the air in their migra- tions by invisible clues. Phenomena, analogous to the great miracles of nature, appear clustered around our Lord, as around their centre ; he rules as a visible, personally present God, in the wide realm of existence ; by invisible, mysterious ties, all is connected with the word of his mouth the expression of his holy will. And what are apparently unconscious movements and im- pulses of nature, appear, when controlled by his will, directed to the highest moral ends. Ver. 8, 9. The sense of a special divine agency, which pro- claimed itself to them as emanating from Jesus, overwhelmed them all with astonishment (6dfij3o(f) and fear ; but in the excitable Peter, expressed itself at once in act and word. His sinfulness appeared to him in such glaring contrast to the heavenly power displayed be- fore him in the Saviour, that he fell down, partly adoring and partly praying : Depart from me (t?|A0e an' fyov). In all this is evidently involved the idea that what is divine, and what is not so, are incom- patible with each other. He who beholds God must die (Judges vi. 23 ; xiii. 22 ; Dan. x. 17) an idea which is perfectly true of the revelation of the divine character in the law on whose level Peter still stood made in the thunders of Sinai, Exod. xix. 12. But in God's gracious revelation in the Saviour, his nearness to sinful man is not only en- durable, but even animating and refreshing ; since, not on a sudden, but gradually, it makes old things pass away, and creates things that are new. For this reason also our Lord quiets his anxiety, and calls upon him to be a fellow-worker for the kingdom which he had come to establish. Ver. 10. The words " henceforth thou shalt catch men" (d-rrb TOV vvv ear) ^uyptiv dvdpuTrovg) , express the main point in the whole transac- 356 LUKE V. 9, 10. tion, to which not only the draught of fishes, but also the strengthen- ing of the Apostles in the faith, were subordinate. We observe here, for the first time, a characteristic of Christ's actions, which we shall have frequent occasion to notice in future. The Saviour teaches by actions he speaks by deeds to those around ; penetrating with deep spiritual glance into the essence of things, he is enabled to deal with the formations of nature in such a manner as to use them as a rich system of symbols or hieroglyphics.* Something analogous may be observed even in the conduct of noble and exalted person- ages on earth. The ideas which inspire them are shadowed forth in their doings ; and under their influence the most insignificant rela- tions become ennobled. A system of symbolical actions of this kind is expressly seen in the ministry of the ancient prophets. (See Jerem. xiii. 1, ff. ; Ezek. xii. 1, ff. ; xxiv. 1, ff.) Of all the actions of Jesus, none presents this characteristic so undeniably as the cursing of the fig-tree (Matth. xxi. 18, ff.), which without such a theory, involves inexplicable difficulties. The advantages of a lan- guage of fact like this, are self-evident ; where fancy and feeling predominate, as is always the case wherever the mind has not risen above that state which is marked by the absence of reflection, a lively, concrete fact always produces infinitely more effect than an abstract argument. In reference to the question as to the import of this transaction, we are met by the circumstance, that an occurrence similar to this, which introduces the more immediate connexion of Peter with the Saviour, concludes it also. (John xxi.) A symboli- cal intimation of the subsequent spiritual ministry of Peter, who is regarded as the representative of the apostolical body, meets us at the beginning and the close of Peter's connexion with his Lord on earth. In the expression : Thou shalt catch men (Hoy $uryp&v dvOpti-xovg) instead of which we find in Matth, iv. 19, and Mark i. 17, I will make you fishers of men (jrotijoo,) vfid^ d/Uelf dvOpw-nuv) that they have to gain over others to themselves, is not the only point of comparison with the spiritual work of the Apostles ; other and more minute relations evidently present themselves. In the first place the idea of catching includes the relation of the con- * Augustine observes appropriately on this point : Interrogermis ipsa miracida, quid nobis loquantur de Christo ; habent enim, si intettigantur, linguam suam. Nam quia ipse Christus verbum est, etiam factum verbi verbum nobis est i. e., " Let us ask the miracles for their testimony concerning Christ; for they have, when understood, a language of their own. For because Christ himself is the Word, also the deed of the Word is a word to us." (Tract xxiv. in Joann. Opp., vol. iii., p. 349, edit Bened.) With these words a beautiful passage from Hamann's works (pt. i., p. 50) may be compared, who, instructed by that Spirit, who always teaches the same truth in all places and at all times, writes quite independently of that Father, as follows : " Every Bible narrative bears the image of man a body, which is ashes and worthless that is the outward letter ; but besides that a soul the breath of God, the life and the light, which shines in the dark, and cannot be comprehended by the darkness." LUKE V. 10, 11. 357 scious agent to an unconscious subject, and the tatter's being over- come by the former. This is precisely the relation that subsisted between the Apostles as the representatives of the Paoikeia, king- dom and the world. While the former represent the higher prin- ciple of life, those who are in the world are in a state of ignorance as to the nature of the higher life. Next, the figure of catching fish refers to the transference of the convert from the old element of life, to the pure, holy element of the Gospel, on which import of the figure the hymn, ascribed to Clement of Alexandria, dwells in the following strain : 2o3rep 'Irjaov Saviour Jesus ! Fisher of men, Even the saved ! Tlekdyovt; Kaieiag From the ocean of sin &JVQVC; Enticing the holy fish, e%6pov From the hostile wave ^ Seted^wv By thy sweet life. Allusions to this transition from the old element of life into the new one of Christianity, are often found in the early ages of Chris- tianity in the use of the name lx,0v$, fishes, of Christians. (See Suiceri tJies. eccl., s. v., dfaevg.) Even in the Old Testament there exist the elements of this comparison. See Jerem. xvi. 16, where the first hemistich runs thus in the LXX. : 'Idov, y amKH-eAAw rovg d A, i e I g rovg rroAAoi)^, keyei Kvpio$ y nai dhievoovoiv avrovg. Par- allel with this the second hemistich has 'ATTOCTTS/L/IW ravg Trokkovg drjpevrdg ical drjpevcovoiv avrovg. Ver. 11. This miraculous event drew the bond between the dis- ciples and the Saviour more closely ; they left their worldly em- ployment, and, following Christ, espoused that spiritual calling which he pointed out to them in its analogy with their former ex- ternal one. The leaving and following (dfaevai and dicohovdeiv) are not, however, to be viewed as an outward act merely, but pre- eminently as an inward transaction, of which the external was but a visible expression. The power of the higher life in Christ which seized them, liberated them spiritually from earthly fetters, and joined them to their Lord by invisible bonds. Externally they did, even at a later period, return to their craft. (See note on John xxi. 3, ff.) 858 MATTHEW VIII. 18-24. 9. JESUS STILLS THE SEA. (Matth. viii. 18-27 ; Mark iv. 35-41 ; Luke viii. 22-25.) Matthew apparently connects the following event with the healing of Peter's mother-in-law yet really with a situation (viii. 18) which cannot have immediately succeeded that event. Mark connects it directly with the parables of the sower, lamp, and corn- field ; in Luke it is attached to the preceding context merely by the loose expression, iv fiia r&v fytepwv, on one of the days. The first verses of this section in Matthew (viii. 19-22) are, moreover, parallel with a passage in Luke (ix. 57, ff.), separated from the first passage (viii. 22, ff.) by a wide interval. Further, the words Matth. viii. 19-22, are rather an introduction, than an integral part of the narrative. Luke introduces them at a later period (ix. 57, ff.) in a more precise connexion, and in a more complete form. For the in- terpretation of them we refer, therefore, to that passage. Matthew seems to have inserted them here in the section which treats of the miracles of Jesus, to bring out the contrast with the all-command- ing will of Jesus ; and to make apparent, that the greatness of the requirement to follow him who had not where to lay his head, is, on the other hand, modified by the fact that he governs the elements. With respect to the fact itself, it exhibits Christ as the Lord of nature in a new aspect, and as calming and pacifying its throes and convulsions. Sin, which, in its fearful effects, disturbed even the physical portion of existence, is thus represented as overcome by the Prince of Peace in the most various forms of its manifestation. (Isa. ix. 6.) In so far as what is external is always a mirror of what is internal, this, and similar events in the evangelical history, express the analogous power of the Saviour over the agitations of the in- ward life. (See note on Matth. xiv. 21, 22.) The Saviour in a ship, accompanied by his disciples, tossed on the waves of the sea, is a natural antitype to the ark containing the representatives of the in- cipient human race, and a prefiguration of the church in its relation to the sea of evil (TreAayof a/aa) in the world. Ver. 23, 24. Our Lord, intending to pass over to the eastern shore of the lake (ver. 18), entered the ship, and fell asleep. Mark, with his usual care, finishes the picture more minutely. On the one hand he observes, that in company with that one ship other smaller ones crossed (iv. 36), and on the other, he describes precisely the Saviour's position. (He was lying in the hinder part of the vessel \Trpv\iva. Acts xxvii. 29, 41], resting his head. HpooKeQdhcuav is probably a support to lean against ; in other cases, generally a, " pillow.") While Jesus slept, a sudden hurricane arose. (Instead MATTHEW VIII. 24-28. 359 of AaTAai/', which Mark and Luke use, Matthew has aeioufy, which denotes properly " earthquakes," then " violent agitations" in gene- ral. The LXX. use it for ?t|udw, to close the mouth, 1 Tim. v. 18 ; fanovoBai, to be dumb, silent, Kondfa = 7}